In the immediately preceding post, I discussed a new appellate case finding there was no insurance coverage available to respond to a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act in which the disabled plaintiff alleged that the design of the premises prevented him from accessing the restroom with his wheelchair. Today, Walter Olson's invaluable site, Overlawyered, reports on the consequences of a similar suit: "Access suit closes landmark Calif. eatery". No mention whether insurance was a consideration in the defendant restaurant's decision to close rather than fight the suit.
The post includes links to numerous other instances of high-profile ADA claims, including a suggestion that the offices of the plaintiff's attorney in the Stockton case on which Overlawyered is reporting are themselves out of compliance with the ADA.
[This post was updated 9/3/03 to add the indvertently omitted final clause of the final sentence. Thanks to Walter Olson for bringing that to my attention, and for the link back.]
Comments