Attorney Richard M. Kenny's Case Featured In New York Law Journal
The Law Offices of Richard M. Kenny recently litigated in a notable case that challenged the definition of "serious injury" according to the New York Insurance Law Â§5102. This case caught the attention of the New York Law Journal, which chose to feature it as one of their Insurance Law Decisions of Interest pieces.
NEW YORK, March 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Law Offices of Richard M. Kenny has been heavily involved in a groundbreaking case (New York Supreme Court Nassau County, Case #8656/09) regarding the definition of a serious injury per New York Insurance Law. This case intrigued the New York Law Journal, and the publication chose to feature the case on the front page of their Decisions of Interest section. The prestigious publication only features lawyers who've done notable and impressive work, and the Law Offices of Richard M. Kenny was honored to be included in this issue. The case deals with pregnancies and the loss of a fetus as related to a car accident. A client at the Law Offices of Richard M. Kenny was involved in a serious automobile collision approximately two months before her child was supposed to be born. Doctors had to perform a premature caesarian section when the woman went into labor after the accident, and were luckily able to save the child. The plaintiff then came to court claiming that she had suffered serious injury in the accident and deserved compensation. The defendants in the case claimed that serious injury was not the right definition for her pain. The court disagreed and instead observed that Insurance Law §5102 allows for the premise that the loss of a fetus is a severe injury, even if it is in reference to the termination of pregnancy where the child survived. According to the article featured within the New York Law Journal, the defendants attempted to prove that the scarring which was caused by the victim's caesarian section was not considered a serious injury so the plaintiff should not be awarded a settlement that included compensation for non-financial losses. The plaintiff claims that she had to miss five months of work after the accident in order to recover, and the premature live birth of her son was indeed a serious injury.