Product Liability, Commercial Litigation, Insurance Defense and Medical Malpractice Defense

Pisciotti, Malsch & Buckley, P.C. represents the best model for client satisfaction in the industry. The finest legal representation and a cost-effective approach are the hallmarks of the firm. Pisciotti, Malsch & Buckley, P.C. is proud to boast long term relationships with its clients because of a total commitment to placing the client’s interests above all else. It is the firm’s mission for its clients to receive unparalleled legal results.

Pisciotti, Malsch & Buckley, P.C. specializes in litigation defense, focusing on product liability cases, commercial matters, insurance coverage cases, medical malpractice and insurance procurement. Experts in issues relating to risk reduction and litigation management, the firm counsels clients in business policies and procedures aimed at minimizing, if not eliminating, litigation.

Partners, Anthony Pisciotti, Jeffrey Malsch, and William Buckley, possess unique educations in addition to law. Mr. Pisciotti’s extensive background in engineering and business activities has proven invaluable in dealing with all aspects of lawsuits. Mr. Malsch’s education in statistics and mathematics, and Mr. Buckley’s background in finance, add value in personal injury, property damage and commercial matters involving allegations of future damages and business losses, along with liability claims based on statistics.

PMB SECURES VICTORY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

January 29, 2009

The New Jersey Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, found in favor of PMB’s argument for Evanston Insurance Company. The briefing of this case before the Supreme Court was a collaborative effort of Anthony Pisciotti, William Buckley and Danny Lallis.

In November, 2008, Mr. Pisciotti advocated Evanston Insurance Company’s position before the New Jersey Supreme Court. At stake was a multi-million dollar excess policy exposure relating to a construction site accident involving an employee of Piermount Iron Works.

This litigation presented far-ranging questions of law for surplus lines insurers operating in New Jersey, including the application of Department of Banking and Insurance surplus lines notice of non-renewal provisions, excess insurer renewal procedures, duties of insurance agents, interpretation of Insurance Service Organization language and the effect of non-payment of premiums.

PMB’s arguments were opposed by counsel representing Piermount, counsel representing Traveler’s Insurance, the insurer of the general contractor on site, counsel for Insurex, the wholesale broker for Piermount, and counsel for Piermount’s retail insurance broker.

Piermount, Traveler’s, Insurex and Winograd argued that Evanston should be responsible for part of the settlement in this matter because Evanston did not send a non-renewal notice of its excess policy, even though Evanston offered Piermount a renewal quote but Piermount never responded. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that neither the New Jersey surplus lines insurance regulations nor the subject policy language supported Piermount’s draconian remedy.

At the trial level, the Honorable Joseph Riva granted Evanston’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court which provoked the appeal to the Supreme Court. A copy of the opinion and video of the oral argument are available upon request.

Pisciotti, Malsch & Buckley, P.C.
Dedicated to providing superior legal services
in the most cost-effective manner.

Martindale-Hubble AV rated