Joe has been helping insurance clients make recoveries for more than 15 years, employing a mix of hard work, dedication, and creativity to achieve the best possible result. He has represented domestic and international property insurers in subrogation matters resulting from a wide variety of loss events, such as fires, water releases, product failures, mechanical system failures, roofing failures and deficiencies, and construct defects. He also advises clients on general litigation matters and has experience litigating professional negligence cases.
Joe assists clients by developing creative pre-suit methods to achieve recoveries, as well as cost-effective and targeted strategies for successful litigation and arbitration of claims. He has extensive experience as lead counsel in the full gamut of recovery matters, from significant construction defect cases involving improper roofing and re-roofing projects for condominiums and commercial buildings, to product liability cases against manufacturers of lithium batteries, consumer electronics, and a variety of plumbing components and related systems.
Promoting the benefits of and advancing the education and policy interests of the subrogation industry are important to Joe. To those ends, he is actively involved in the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP), including serving on its Board of Directors. He has presented at NASP’s Annual Conference since 2012 and frequently speaks at NASP’s Litigation Skills Conferences. Joe co-chaired NASP’s 2018 Annual Conference in Orlando, FL, and has earned his Certified Subrogation Recovery Professional (CSRP) designation through NASP. Through these activities, Joe has developed and strengthened relationships with colleagues and service providers in the subrogation industry.
Joe has spent his entire career as a practicing attorney at Cozen O’Connor, where he now serves as Vice Chair, Office Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami Office. Joe is also Technology & Innovation Chair and Co-Chair of the Tech Toys & Products Task Force for the firm’s Subrogation & Recovery Department. In addition to his vast experience practicing within the contiguous United States, Joe has also litigated subrogation matters and general litigation matters in federal court in Puerto Rico.
August 28, 2019
Joe Rich, a member the firm’s Miami office, has been appointed to the board of directors for the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP).
June 14, 2019
Joe Rich has earned his Certified Subrogation Recovery Professional (CSRP) Designation administered by the National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP).
April 02, 2019
Joseph Rich is included in Law.com's The Intelligencer discussing why he has chosen to stay with one firm, Cozen O'Connor, for his entire career. Joseph attributes his long career at Cozen O'Connor to the attention to work-life balance.
August 20, 2018
Cozen O’Connor is pleased to announce the promotion of eight members to shareholders: Marc Auberbach, Jonathan Grossman, Aaron Krauss, Daniel J. Luccaro, Barbara Muller, Joseph F. Rich, Nicole Sprinzen, and Paula Zecchini.
February 17, 2017
Joseph Rich and Richard Maleski, of Cozen O'Connor's Subrogation and Recovery department, hosted a firm webinar that was featured in a Claims Journal article titled, "Documenting Subrogation Loss Means Getting Lots of Photos."
May 14, 2015
Joe Rich has been elected to the Le Moyne College Alumni Association Board for an initial four-year term beginning this Fall.
January 28, 2014
Joe Rich, a member of the Subrogation and Recovery Department in our Philadelphia office, has been appointed as the 2014 Chapter Co-Chair of NASP's revived DC/MD Chapter.
October 28, 2013
Joseph Rich will be honored at the Homeless Advocacy Project’s Award Ceremony on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 in recognition of his extraordinary work providing legal services to homeless men, women and children of Philadelphia.
May 23, 2013
Joe Rich, a member of the Subrogation & Recovery Department, passed the Federal Bar Examination for the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Unlike most federal courts that allow admission without an examination, the District of Puerto Rico requires applicants to sit for a multiple choice and essay examination covering topics of Federal Civil and Criminal Procedure, Federal Sentencing, Evidence, Jurisdiction and Venue, Appellate Procedure, Ethics, and the Bankruptcy Code. Congratulations to Joe---only 30% of the attorneys who took the exam passed.
January 25, 2013
Marsha Cohen, executive director of The Homeless Advocacy Project recently announced that Joe Rich has been appointed to the HAP 2013 Advisory Board. With a legal staff of 13 and a corps of 400 volunteer lawyers, paralegals, and law students, HAP engages in direct outreach to homeless individuals in need of legal services. HAP collaborates with shelter providers, homeless advocates, community service providers and the legal community to provide homeless clients with legal representation and to connect them with other social services.
June 18, 2019
Rick Maleski and Joe Rich discuss Florida's move from the Frye standard back to the Daubert standard.
June 13, 2019
Law enforcement in Miami-Dade County, Florida recently arrested nine individuals described by Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis as the “ringleaders of an elaborate fraud scheme” led by Barbara Maria Diaz de Villegas, owner of the public adjusting company The Rubicon Group. The...
November 01, 2018
Joe Rich discusses the benefits of Florida's decision to return to the Frye standard over the Daubert standard.
September 20, 2018
Richard Maleski and Joseph Rich discuss the decision in Gindel et. al. v. Centex Homes et. al., and its impact on the tolling of the statute of repose in Florida.
April 26, 2017
Joe Rich and Joshua Goodman discuss the Florida Supreme Court opinion in In Re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code, in which the court declined to adopt the Daubert standard, on procedural grounds, for admissibility of expert testimony.
April 03, 2017
Cozen O’Connor recently provided a detailed presentation and power point on CPVC pipe failures. Here are a few of the slides documenting why this issue is important for subrogation professionals.
January 18, 2017
Joseph Rich discusses why a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed a plaintiff to serve a defendant via the social media platform Twitter.
September 14, 2016
Joe Rich and David Brisco discuss smartphone fires related to lithium-ion batteries.
May 23, 2016
In this Alert, we discuss hoverboards and recent advisories in response to fire trends associated with hoverboards by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
January 26, 2016
Rick Maleski and Joe Rich discuss the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp. that made clear that the Second Restatement test known as the “consumer expectation test” is the law in Florida for product liability claims based on a design defect, not the Third Restatement of Torts, which uses a “risk utility test” requiring plaintiffs show a reasonable alternative design for a product.
October 05, 2015
The scope of discovery is going to change from allowing what is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” to what is “proportional to the needs of the case.”
February 10, 2015
Social media, whether it be posted comments, photographs, video footage or other media, has clearly emerged over the last few years as a new and sometimes generous source of information to assist with recovery efforts. From insureds to possible targets to third-party witnesses, it is clear people are now more accustomed to posting what occurs in their daily lives to their social media accounts, which also necessarily means there is a good chance loss related information has and will continue to find its way into the world of social media. But often times, What is and what is not discoverable when it comes to “social media”? is a question that gives insurance claims professionals and their subrogation counsel a moment of pause when litigating a subrogation claim and considering whether to explore social media as source of useful information. Three recent cases in Florida, provide further guidance on how far a litigant can go in seeking discovery of social media.
February 03, 2015
On January 23, 2015, the Professional Ethics Committee of the Florida Bar issued Proposed Advisory Opinion 14-1, in which the Committee found that “a lawyer may advise the client pre-litigation to remove information from a social media page, regardless of its relevance to a reasonably foreseeable...
January 23, 2015
“[I]f we don’t put in place the kind of architecture that can prevent these attacks from taking place, this is not just going to be affecting movies, this is going to be affecting our entire economy in ways that are extraordinarily significant.”
– President Obama, December 19, 2014
June 10, 2014
In an article in the Claims Journal, Joe Rich address how we should be looking beyond the breaches to recovery as well, both in terms of possibility of recoveries and how to evaluate recovery. Surprisingly, there has been little attention given to the topic of subrogation or recovery opportunities arising our of cyber losses. In this article, we analyze the prospect of recovering on a cyber loss.
May 15, 2014
In a harbinger of data-breach-laws to come, the Florida State Legislature just passed a new Florida Information Protection Act, which establishes tough new notification requirements for businesses and governmental entities. With the rapid increase in data breaches and growing awareness of the...
May 15, 2014
Joe Rich and David Brisco address the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014 which established tough new notification and requirements for businesses and governmental entities in the Cozen O'Connor Cyber Law Monitor blog.
April 21, 2014
In 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 was amended to provide new limitations on the discovery allowed for testifying experts in federal court cases. The most significant changes with regard to testifying experts, i.e., experts you intend to call at the time of trial, were that: (1) drafts of expert reports to counsel are no longer discoverable; and (2) communications between experts and counsel are no longer discoverable unless they relate to (i) compensation or (ii) facts, data, or assumptions provided by counsel that were considered by the expert. For subrogation professionals, these changes were positive as the amendments’ goals were to reduce costs and time spent on discovery of draft reports and an expert’s discussions or communications with counsel. The changes were further meant to streamline the discovery process and focus the parties on issues that were more central to the case, which was also good news to folks handling subrogation litigation.
October 23, 2013
We have all seen the Herculean deeds of a superhero on television or in the movies. They knock over buildings, use buses as weapons and generally cause super-sized amounts of property damage. Have you ever wondered who pays for the property damages left in the wake of a superhero? With no superhero exclusion, a property policy might just cover these situations. So, if the insurer pays for the damage caused by the actions of a superhero, is there a path for subrogation recovery? Let’s dive into that world, and find out.
September 04, 2013
Joseph Rich authored this article on the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which present not only a significant shift in the scope of the discovery allowed in federal court, but also would usher in a new era of other limitations on discovery.
August 22, 2013
In 2010, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to change the scope and method of expert discovery in federal courts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Now, more possible changes to Rule 26 are on the horizon and subrogation professionals and litigators should be mindful of these potential changes and the impact they will have on the discovery process in subrogation matters in federal court.
May 31, 2013
With the emergence of more useful applications for the iPad that can used by attorneys or are tailored to our needs, we are no longer restricted by the physical world of redwelds or trial bags when we work outside our offices. The limits of what we can have access to at our fingertips outside of the office is no longer limited based on whether we can manage to jam our laptops and everything else into that nice leather bag that we received as a birthday gift.
May 15, 2013
The process of serving foreign defendants can be a long and costly path through the Central Authority or courts of a foreign country under The Hague Convention (on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents), and sometimes the requests for service go unanswered for several months, leaving litigants to wonder whether they will ever be able to pursue their case.
September 25, 2012
Exculpatory Provisions Can No Longer Preclude Liability for Reckless Acts in Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Recent Decision Shows that the Tide is Turning - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - Have you handled a good liability case only to find an exculpatory clause in the contract or lease allowing the targeted party to avoid liability for its negligent acts or omissions? Now, in Pennsylvania, liable parties no longer can
claim blanket protection under an exculpatory provision if they were potentially reckless in bringing about a loss.
August 07, 2012
The Decision in Phaneuf Funeral home v. Little Giant Pump Co.: Statute of Repose in New Hampshire Now Only Protects Manufacturers & Sellers of Products Who Were Involved In the Transformation of the Products into Improvements - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - What factors determine whether manufacturers or sellers of products incorporated into an improvement to a structure are protected by the statute of repose?
May 08, 2012
Don’t Forget Contract Claims! Another Possible Theory of Recovery in Cases Against the United States - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - Do you have a claim against the United States? You already may know about how to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Have you also considered a breach of contract claim, in addition to any tort claim? If not, you need to assess whether the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. section 7101, et seq. applies to your contract claim.
March 08, 2012
Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants Under the Supreme Court's Recent Decision J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - Although recovery professionals often assert that the movement of goods from a foreign manufacturer to domestic consumers - sometimes referred to as "the stream of commerce" - allows one to maintain jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a state, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, _U.S._, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (plurality op., Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia,
November 29, 2010
New Expert Report and Communication Rules in Federal Court Cases - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - Draft expert reports can be a trap for the unwary, often resulting in drafts not being protected from discovery by opposing parties. Under recently amended Federal Rule 26 for Federal cases, draft expert reports now are discoverable when counsel is not involved. The converse is the lesson of the day: draft reports are privileged when prepared at the request of counsel. This Alert discusses these important new amendments to Federal Rule 26, and their impact on expert disclosures.
July 01, 2008
The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) - Subrogation and Recovery Alert! - 4 pgs total. The U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is an intl. agreement that is applicable to contracts for the intl. sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different countries. Two CISG issues that are relevant to subrogation actions against parties doing business in a foreign country: a requirement that the buyer provide timely notice of the nonconformity of the goods to the seller, and, the statute of limitations under CISG.