Kevin M. Mc Keon

Significant Representative Matters: Malin v. Bayliner Corp., 148 F. 3d 1154 (3rd Cir. 1998), Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's dismissal of boat manufacturer after lengthy trial involving claims of breach of warranty, fraud, revocation of acceptance.; Palmucci v. Brunswick Corp., 311 N.J. Super. 607, 710 A. 2d 1045 (App. Div. 1998). Holding that manufacturers are entitled to at least one opportunity to cure an allegedly defective product prior to plaintiff filing suit.; Wanetick v. OCT Partnership, 318 N.J. Super. 156, 723 A. 2d 100 (App. Div. 1999). Holding that an ultimate outcome charge must be given to a jury in a consumer fraud case.; Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F. 3d 578 (3rd Cir. 1997). Determining federal jurisdictional issues and stating that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for actions of a dealer absent an indicia of ownership of the dealer in a consumer fraud case.; Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169, 793 A. 2d 104 (App. Div. 2001). holding that there is a two-year statute of limitation in a lemon law claim, and addressing breach of warranty statute of limitation issues.; Wanetick v. Gateway Mitsubishi, 163 N.J. 484, 750 A. 2d 79 (2000). New Jersey Supreme Court ruling holding that an ultimate outcome charge must be given to a jury in a Consumer Fraud Act case; Model Jury Charges amended to reflect this ruling.; Ryan v. American Honda, 186 N.J. 431, 896 A. 2d 454 (2006). Holding that leases are covered in New Jersey under the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.; Divigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314, 785 A. 2d 37 (App. Div. 2001), cert. den. 171 N.J. 442, 794 A. 2d 181 (2002). Addressing plaintiff's burden of proof and jury instructions in a lemon law case.; Obtained complete summary judgments dismissing entire cases for multiple automobile manufacturers in numerous cases in New Jersey and Pennsylvania involving the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lemon laws, breach of warranty (Uniform Commercial Code), Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and consumer fraud statutes.; Had plaintiff dismiss product liability fire loss case against product manufacturer in claim for over $500,000 in property damage by proving through experts that client's product did not cause fire.; Had plaintiff dismiss products liability case against exercise equipment manufacturer in personal injury case by establishing that client's product did not cause the injury and injury either did not take place or was caused by othe defendants.; Defense verdict in jury trial on behalf of boat manufacturer in product warranty case where plaintiff claimed a defect in a boat led to a boat sinking in Atlantic Ocean.; Obtained summary judgment relief for owner and driver of tow truck involved in multi-vehicle fatality crash. Our clients' truck was struck from behind while towing another vehicle. The striking vehicle was a correctional facility transport van, which was transporting two inmates and two correctional officers. The impact caused injuries to both occupants of the tow truck and to all four occupants of the van, including fatal injuries to one of the inmates. Our clients were target defendants of the plaintiff correctional officer who was a passenger in the van, given the immunity provided to the Department of Corrections and its driver by the worker's compensation bar. At the conclusion of discovery, the Court accepted our motion based on the argument that a jury could not reasonably find our driver negligent despite the allegation that he had been driving too slow and despite the fact that he had received numerous citations for motor vehicle and towing violations. Our argument relied upon the uncontroverted expert opinions reached by the State Police's accident investigator and our own accident reconstruction expert.; Representative Cases: Miranda v. MarineMax, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2419 (App. Div. 2013); McGarvey v. Penske, 486 Fed. Appx. 276 (3rd Cir. 2012); Washington v. Thiele Manuf., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66547 (D.N.J. 2012); Patel v. American Honda Motor Co., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1146 (App. Div. 2011); Ferrari v. American Honda Motor Co., 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 346 (App. Div. 2009); Smith v. Cavalier Builders, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23457 (D.N.J. 2008); Divigenze v. Chrysler Corp., 345 N.J. Super. 314, 785 A.2d 37 (cert. den. 171 N.J. 442, 794 A.2d 181 2002); Wanetick v. Gateway Mitsubishi, et al, 163 N.J. 484, 750 A.2d 79 (2002); Poli v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 349 N.J. Super. 169, 793 A.2d 104 (App. Div. 2001); Wanetick v. OCT Partnership, 318 N.J. Super. 156, 723 A.2d 100 (App. Div. 1999); Palmucci v. Brunswick Corporation, 311 N.J. Super. 607, 710 A.2d 1045 (App. Div. 1998); Suber v. Chrysler Corporation, 104 F.3d 578 (3rd Cir. 1997); Published Works: Impaired Cognizance of Injury From Sexual Abuse May Not Trigger the Discovery Rule, Defense Digest, Vol. 6, No. 6, December 2000; Strict Liability and Negligence Claims May be Barred in New Jersey Products Liability Cases Involving Damage to the Product, Defense Digest, 1998-02, Vol. 4, No. 1; The Defense of Charitable Organizations Takes a Turn for the Better, Defense Digest, April 1995