George A. Kohl

Mr. Kohl has been with the firm since November 1988. He has been peer ranked by the Martindale Hubbell Attorney rating service as BV “Distinguished”.

Mr. Kohl successfully handled on behalf of the insured, two of the State’s most important cases on supplemental uninsured motorist coverage, in the Court of Appeals. Matter of Prudential Property & Casualty v. Szeli, 83 N.Y.2d 601 (1994), Brandon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 97 N.Y.2d 491 (2002).In Matter of Prudential, the Court of Appeals held that the Supplemental Uninsured Motorist coverage of the claimant’s $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident split limit policy was triggered when the tortfeasor held a $300,00 single liability limit policy, and the claimant was one of three people injured in an accident.

In coming to its decision the Court held that when multiple claimants are involved in an accident the total accident bodily injury liability limit of the claimant’s policy must be compared with the tortfeasor’s single liability limit, when the two policies are compared for underinsured triggering purposes. The Court also held that the $300,000 total accident bodily injury liability limit of a split limit policy is greater than the tortfeasor’s $300,000 single liability limit because the single limit includes a minimum of $10,000 in property damage coverage.

In Brandon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 97 N.Y.2d 401 (2002), the Court of Appeals held that a Supplemental Uninsured Motorist carrier seeking to deny coverage to an insured on the ground that said insured failed to comply with the notice of legal accident requirement of the Supplemental Uninsured Motorist endorsement, must show actual prejudice in order to successfully deny the claimant’s SUM claim. That was the first Court of Appeals case which departed from the no-prejudice rule which generally provided that an insurance company does not need to show that it was prejudiced by the insured’s failure to provide it with timely notice in order to successfully disclaim coverage on late notice grounds.

Mr. Kohl also handled on behalf of the plaintiff, one of the earliest Appellate Division Second Department cases which held that a defendant can be held legally liable for a dangerous sidewalk condition even if such condition was open and obvious to the plaintiff at the time of the occurrence. Adsmond v. City of Poughkeepsie, 283 A.D.2d 598 (2nd Dept. 2001).

Mr. Kohl also handled on behalf of the plaintiff, one of the first Appellate Division skiing accident case which found that a ski facility could be held legally responsible for injuries sustained by a skier due to a dangerous trail condition, despite the primary assumption of risk doctrine Fabris v. Town of Thompson, 192 A.D.2d 1045 (3ra Dept. 1993).

Mr. Kohl has argued before the New York State Court of Appeals twice, the Appellate Division for the Second Department between 15 and 20 times, and the Appellate Division for the Third Department between 5 and 10 times.Mr. Kohl has filed the main appellant or respondent brief in nearly 100 appeals at the Appellate Division level.

Mr. Kohl has handled hundreds of dispositive motions on behalf of plaintiffs.He is recognized as having substantial expertise in Insurance Law, particularly in the area of Supplemental Uninsured Motorist coverage.

Mr. Kohl also has expertise and substantial experience in handling premises liability cases on behalf of plaintiffs.Mr. Kohl has also co authored an article on veteran benefits which appeared in the New York State Bar Association Bill Of Particulars Publication.