Joshua S. Bauchner

Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. Insurance Litigation Focus of CNN Broadcast

Ansell Grimm February 10, 2015

Ansell, Grimm & Aaron, P.C. recently commenced two actions on behalf of auto-body shop clients who suffer allegedly unlawful conduct at the hands of multiple insurance carriers. Our clients’ story — and that of other, similarly situated plaintiffs — were featured on Anderson Cooper 360 on February 10, 2015 on CNN (click link to view article).

The Complaints allege that the Defendants engage in an ongoing, concerted and intentional course of conduct — with State Farm acting as the spearhead — to improperly and illegally control and depress automobile damage repair costs to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the general public, and to the substantial profit of Defendants.

By example, Defendants exert control over body shops by entering into program agreements generically known as direct repair program agreements (“DRPs”). DRPs were presented to body shops as a mutually beneficial opportunity — in exchange for providing certain concessions of price, priority and similar matters, the individual Defendants would list a body shop as a preferred provider. However, the concessions demanded by the individual Defendants in exchange for remaining in a DRP were not balanced by the purported benefits. Rather, the Defendants, particularly State Farm, allegedly utilized these agreements to exert control over the auto body repair industry in general including those shops, like Plaintiffs, which are not part of a DRP. In sum, Defendants sought to dictate the price for parts, labor and material untethered to market realities.

The Complaints further allege that Defendants engage in an ongoing pattern and practice of coercion and implied threats to the pecuniary health of the Plaintiffs’ businesses in order to force compliance with unreasonable and onerous concessions. Failure to comply results in removal from the DRP combined with improper “steering” of customers away from the Plaintiffs’ businesses.

Defendants’ alleged misconduct means that repairs are made by the cheapest bidder, using the cheapest parts, and the cheapest labor — and then placing those unsafe vehicles on the road. We anticipate these remarkable facts being brought to light tonight night on CNN.

The nationwide impact of Defendants’ alleged misconduct resulted in the commencement of litigation in multiple jurisdictions. As a result, the various actions were consolidated as A&E Auto Body, Inc. et al. v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, et al., bearing Docket number 6-14-mdl-2257 (GAP)(TBS) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner at (973) 247-9000.

Abyssinian Development Corp. is target of homeowner gripes

Ansell Grimm December 15, 2014

New York, New York — Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. recently commenced an action in New York State Court against the Abyssinian Development Corporation (“ADC”) and its contractor, Apex Building Company (“Apex”), alleging that the home it sold through a federal and state funded program is riddled with design and construction defects rendering it unsafe and uninhabitable. As recently reported in the New York Daily News, the Complaint seeks $1,000,000.00 in damages arising from the defendants’ alleged misconduct.

As set forth in the Complaint, Christina Robilotto entered into a contract with ADC to purchase a home as part of the Federal Housing Administration 203(k) Loan Program, operated jointly by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, a New York non-for-profit corporation (“LISC”). The federal government designed these loans to encourage lenders to fund seemingly risky home purchases to promote neighborhood revitalization and greater homeownership.

In accord with the express terms of the Purchase Contract, ADC represented that it would construct the premises in compliance with the Architectural Plans and the New York City Building Code and that: “The quality of construction shall be comparable to local standards customary in the particular trade and substantially in accordance with the Plans.”

The Complaint alleges that these and other representations by ADC were false and that the home instead suffers from material deign and construction defects. Among other problems, the building’s facade is falling off, the sheetrock is covered with mold as a result of water leaks in the foundation and through the roof, and an improperly installed boiler has led to heating problems. The Complaint further alleges that although the homeowner repeatedly contacted ADC and Apex to complete the construction and make necessary repairs, they instead walked away from their contractual obligations.

As a result, a publicly financed program intended to promote home ownership by low and middle income families has instead saddled them with homes plagued by problems which they cannot afford to repair having dedicated their savings to the purchase.

Ansell Grimm & Aaron attorney Joshua S. Bauchner, who lives in New York, commented that “ADC has a horrible reputation with respect to the properties it manages and builds. Although it seeks to hide behind its affiliated church, its purported mission to support low and middle income families though affordable housing has failed miserably. We intend to hold them to account.”

* * *

For more than 80 years, ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C. has been dedicated to providing excellent legal services throughout the Central New Jersey region. The Firm has vast experience and knowledge in nearly all areas of the law, focusing primarily on New Jersey, New York and Federal matters. In providing zealous advocacy and skilled legal advice to our diverse clientele, our attorneys all practice with a common philosophy… commitment to excellence and commitment to people.

For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner at (973) 247-9000.

Let Them Plead in the Alternative

Ansell Grimm September 15, 2014

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the September 12, 2014 issue of the New York Law Journal entitled “Let Them Plead in the Alternative.” The right to plead claims in the alternative is well established in New York state practice and jurisprudence. Yet, courts often seek to “streamline” cases at the very nascent stages of a litigation by dismissing so-called “duplicative” claims seeking alternative forms of relief. This practice defies the permissive pleading standards embodied in the CPLR and often risks imposing unnecessary complexity and prejudice into the litigation for no useful reason.

For the full article click here.

Reprinted with permission from the September 12, 2014 edition of the “New York Law Journal.” © 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.

Steering Suit Shines Light on Insurer Abuse

Ansell Grimm May 23, 2014

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently filed lawsuits in New York and New Jersey against insurance brokers and adjusters alleging violations of state “anti-steering” laws which forbid insurers and their agents from directing claimants to, or away from, a particular body repair shop. The Complaints include transcripts of recorded conversations between the plaintiffs’ customers and the defendants in which the defendants expressly refuse to do business with the plaintiffs and steer their customers away, causing significant lost business and other injury. For complete story, please see the article on page 18 of New Jersey Automotive.

The Pressure Is On: Insurer-Mandated Parts Procurement Hits Home

Ansell Grimm May 23, 2014

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently spoke on a panel at the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers Northeast Convention. The panel addressed the launch of PartsTrader, an online parts procurement system developed by State Farm, which will provide insurers with control over the pricing of parts. The program raises numerous concerns, including, as Bauchner commented, its impact on the safety and quality of the repairs. For complete story, please see the article on page 22 of New Jersey Automotive.

Hudson Lights Project, Fort Lee

Ansell Grimm May 21, 2014

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently filed a lawsuit against Tishman Construction Corp., Tucker Development, and A.G. Construction Corp. on behalf of the firm’s client, Riverfront Management and Consulting LLC, relating to the $1 billion mixed-use development Hudson Lights Project in Fort Lee, New Jersey. The suit alleges the defendants deceived Riverfront into funding $1.2 million in materials and construction expenses, for which payment remains outstanding. To read more on the subject, please click on Law 360 or North Jersey.com.

Fending Off the Appointment of a Receiver

Ansell Grimm December 17, 2013

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the December 2013 issue of the Law Journal Newsletter entitled “Fending Off the Appointment of a Receiver.” This article covers entitlement to a receiver; mortgagee’s security and more. For the full article, click here.

The False Hope of Lost Profits Damages

Ansell Grimm October 1, 2013

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the September 27, 2013 issue of the New York Law Journal entitled “The False Hope of Lost Profits.” Lost profits damages are frequently sought by clients who have suffered a business interruption due to another’s negligence or contractual breach. However, Courts often are reluctant to award such damages finding they are speculative and “icing” — they do not make the prospective plaintiff whole, but instead permit a surplus recovery in addition to compensatory or consequential damages. For these reasons, Courts have restricted lost profits damages requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate their loss with “reasonable certainty” and ensuring such losses are not recoverable under other theories or in other ways.

This article is intended to guide the practitioner through the pitfalls of lost profits damages and ensure the focus is on recovery, regardless of how it is characterized. As an initial matter, cases addressing lost profits distinguish between damages resulting from tortious conduct and those arising from a breach of contract. Although in both situations a plaintiff has the burden of proving lost profits with reasonable certainty, the underlying causes of action recommend separate treatment.

For full article click here.

Reprinted with permission from the September 27, 2013 edition of the “New York Law Journal.” © 2013 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – reprints@alm.com.

Fending Off the Appointment of a Receiver

Ansell Grimm July 8, 2013

Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the July 1, 2013 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal entitled “Fending off the Appointment of a Receiver.” In today’s stressful economic climate, commercial property owners often are the victims of their tenant’s problems. While a national tenant may file for bankruptcy with the expectation of reorganizing under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the landlord is left having to service the mortgage without cash-flow from that tenant or any ability to commence an eviction or related action as a result of the automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362. Sooner or later (likely sooner) the Landlord’s bank will come calling in the form of a foreclosure action.

While the defaults under the mortgage present their own challenges (the rapid accrual of default interest, late fees, and attorneys’ fees and costs), the likely first step in the foreclosure action will be a Motion to Appoint a Receiver; indeed, this requested relief often is sought contemporaneously with the filing of the foreclosure complaint. The motion will seek the appointment of a receiver simply to collect rents or, more often these days, to take full managerial and operational control over the property divesting the Landlord of all its rights and interests (though not, title, as of yet). This article details some defenses the Borrower (née Landlord) can assert to ward off the appointment. For full article click here

This article was originally published in the July 1, 2013 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal.

AGA Sues National Law Firm Alleging It Violated Former Client’s Rights

Ansell Grimm April 24, 2013

Law360, New York (February 19, 2013, 2:37 PM ET) — A former Ramius Securities LLC manager sued Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in New York state court on Friday, alleging the law firm disclosed privileged attorney-client communications to make him the fall guy in a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority investigation of the broker-dealer….

Please click here to read the article in its entirety.

Joshua S. Bauchner

Recent Posts