Construction Accident Liability
First Party Benefits Defense
General Property and Casualty Liability
Call us : (212) 482-0001
Call us : (212) 482-0001
Chuck is the Partner in charge of the firm's Pennsylvania office.
He is a native Philadelphian who served as a Philadelphia Assistant City Solicitor upon graduation from Villanova University School of Law in 1980. In that capacity, he represented the city, the Zoning Board and the Board of Revision of Taxes in eminent domain, real estate tax and zoning matters.
Chuck has practiced exclusively in the field of property and casualty defense for more than 35 years. He has tried numerous jury and non-jury matters to verdict in the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania including motor vehicle, premises liability, products liability, dram shop and professional liability matters, as well as hundreds of compulsory and private arbitrations.
Chuck has also successfully handled numerous appeals before the Pennsylvania appellate courts and the Third U.S. Circuit.
Chuck has lectured on the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Law and has given numerous presentations to claims professionals on subjects ranging from contractual and common law indemnification to insurance bad faith and uninsured/underinsured motorist law. Chuck frequently serves as a Judge Pro Tem in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Congratulations go out to Tashi Vaish who got a unanimous defense verdict on liability earlier today in Supreme Kings on the Salway Nasser v. Tadhbir Singh and Jean R. Joseph case. The plaintiff, who did not know who caused the accident, was a passenger in the insured''s livery vehicle headed to JFK Airport. The co-defendant was also a livery driver and neither driver could be produced for either a deposition or trial.
Russo & Gould Partner Charles ("Chuck") B. Stokes, Esquire has successfully defended a claim for more than $600,000 in compensatory damages brought by the owners of an upscale Burlington County, New Jersey residence. In Walsh v. AmGuard, Plaintiffs filed suit in state court claiming that their homeowner''s carrier had failed to compensate them adequately for damages they allegedly sustained as a result of a 2019 storm. They claimed that high winds tore shingles from their roof, allowing rain to infiltrate much of the building and either damage or destroy walls, floors, doors, windows and other elements of the residence, as well as extensive personal property. They claimed that much of the damage was caused by mold, which they claimed developed during an alleged delay in investigating and adjusting the loss.