Case Update: January 2003

Methfessel & Werbel Expands Its New York Office

We would like to begin 2003 with a word of thanks to our business partners, whose continued confidence in the quality and cost-effectiveness of our work has prompted significant growth over the past year. Our New York office in particular has expanded rapidly, culminating in our relocation to 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400, New York, New York10123.


Our new offices at 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400, New York, New York 10123 provide more than twice the physical space of our prior facilities at 11 Penn Plaza. Even more importantly, the newly-enhanced technological infrastructure will allow our New York attorneys and staff to interface with our home office in New Jersey on a much more effective level. These technological advances promise to increase productivity at all levels of our organization.


Over the coming months we look forward to implementing further technological innovations that will enable our business partners to retrieve information and navigate the history and current status of their claims nearly instantaneously. We pride ourselves on the pursuit of technological improvements for the benefit of our clients and look forward to sharing a host of exciting developments with you in 2003. Happy New Year!



At the heart of the national hysteria over toxic mold claims lies the June 2001 jury verdict in Ballard v. Fire Insurance Exchange, a highly publicized Texas case in which two homeowners were awarded $32 million in damages based on their insurer’s negligent adjustment of a large claim for water and mold damage. On December 19th the Texas Court of Appeals in Austin effectively reduced the net verdict to approximately $4 million. The Court applied Texas law to hold that while there was sufficient evidence presented to demonstrate a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud on the part of FIE to support an award of punitive damages. The appeals court also affirmed the trial judge’s refusal to permit testimony from plaintiffs’ proposed medical experts due to lack of scientific reliability.  [MORE]



Download This File