Peter S. Cuddihy

Practice Details

• Video Calls
  Offers Video Calls

  Video Call Options

  Zoom
  
• Firm Information
  Position

  Partner

  Firm Name

  Margolis Edelstein
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS: Ward v. Merced - This precedential case from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division clarified the procedure
  the resultant proofs required in order for the insurer to successfully establish the legal cancellation of a policy of automobile insurance in New Jersey. Whereas heretofore, the published New Jersey decisions overwhelmingly found fault with one or more aspects of the proof of mailing required to demonstrate effective proof of cancellation, Mr. Cuddihy with the assistance of the Mount Laurel Postmaster, was able to educate the Court with respect to the stringent policies
  procedures undertaken by the post office in the sorting, cancellation
  mailing process, the certification of which the Court recognized for the first time as having satisfied the proof of mailing requirement under the applicable statute.
  Pisaneschi v. Turner Construction Company v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Company - This seminal case from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, clarified the scope of the loading
  unloading doctrine in the State of New Jersey. Therein, the plaintiff, who was an employee of a trucking company that had been contracted to deliver
  install air conditioning equipment at a renovation site, brought a strict products liability claim against the manufacturer of the air conditioning units for injuries sustained in a fall resulting from the plastic strap that had been used to secure the unit to a wooden pallet having broken. The manufacture brought a third-party complaint against the trucking company's automobile liability insurer seeking coverage under the automobile liability insurer's insurance policy. Defending the automobile liability insurer, Mr. Cuddihy successfully convinced the Appellate Division that the loading
  unloading process had been successfully completed prior to the accident having occurred
  , therefore, the responsibility for coverage remained with the product manufacturer.
• Additional Links
  http://www.margolisedelstein.com