Results

We obtained a unanimous 12-0 defense verdict after a two-week trial in Santa Fe County, New Mexico, where the plaintiff was seeking approximately $40 million in damages. In this asbestos litigation case, it was alleged that the decedent contracted mesothelioma and died at the age of 76 as a result of being exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound manufactured and sold by our client. The decedent worked as an electrician for 40 years and contended he worked in the vicinity of drywall workers at various commercial worksites throughout Albuquerque and New Mexico. The plaintiff claimed that our client’s joint compound was defective because it was sold without a warning of the well-established dangers of asbestos. Further, the plaintiff argued that our client was negligent because it knew or should have known of the dangers of asbestos, which were readily known from as early as the 1930s. The defense argued that the asbestos fiber used in our client’s joint compound was safe because the fibers were short fibers and not known to increase the risk of disease. It was further argued that our client acted reasonably and in a timely manner when it placed a government-mandated warning on their product in the early 1970s. Lastly, it was argued that the only product identification witness called by the plaintiff was not credible because he gave three depositions in 2017 and did not identify our client’s product. He first identified our client’s product during his fourth deposition in late 2019, when our client was the only remaining defendant. The jury found our client’s product was not defective, but that they were negligent. However, the jury found the negligence was not a cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma.

We successfully defended a legal malpractice claim where the plaintiffs alleged their former attorneys caused them to sustain more than $1.3 million in damages. ​The plaintiffs, a collection of property developers, were named as defendants in a series of debt collection actions brought by their lender. Our attorney client represented them in those matters and sought to renegotiate the debt; however, they were unsuccessful, and the lender prevailed. In the legal malpractice matter, the plaintiffs sought to recover amounts they were required to reimburse the bank for its legal fees, their own expert witness fees and the legal fees they paid to our client. In a matter of first impression, the Delaware Superior Court held that a legal malpractice plaintiff who was a defendant in an underlying matter must demonstrate that it was caused to lose a judgment in order to prevail on its legal malpractice claim. It was insufficient to suggest that the attorneys should have settled the cases before the attorneys’ fees escalated. Because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that they would have prevailed in the underlying cases, they could not prevail on their subsequent legal malpractice claim.

The 55-year-old plaintiff underwent tarsal tunnel surgery. She developed post-operative complications, including infection, and required two additional surgeries, including a sural artery flap graft. The plaintiff gained over 100 pounds after the podiatric surgeries and underwent gastric bypass surgery. She alleged it was required as the result of being sedentary from the podiatric surgeries and complications. The plaintiff has significant lower extremity surgical scarring, chronic pain and a gait abnormality. She was never able to return to work. She  alleged that the defendant intentionally kept fraudulent, incomplete and untimely electronic medical records. The defense argued that the podiatric surgeries were indicated and performed within the standard of care, and that the plaintiff developed post-operative complications resulting in the need for additional surgeries due to her own noncompliance—prematurely and repeatedly walking on her surgical foot and getting her surgical dressings wet.

We obtained an appellate decision affirming the dismissal, with prejudice, of a wrongful death lawsuit filed against a long-term acute care hospital in Florida. ​The claim alleged the hospital improperly transferred the patient to another hospital without an adequate handoff and appropriate medications, resulting in the death of the patient shortly after arrival at the receiving hospital. The plaintiff sought damages for medical negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-suit screening procedures required by statute and failed to assert an actionable claim for an intentional tort against the hospital.

We obtained a defense verdict in a Bucks County case on behalf of a driver despite his conviction for driving at the time under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The accident occurred at an intersection controlled by a flashing traffic light. The defendant was traveling in the direction of the yellow flashing light. The plaintiff testified that he stopped at the painted stop block for the red flashing light. The plaintiff looked both ways, and believing that all was clear, proceeded into the intersection. The plaintiff saw the defendant coming from his left at a high rate of speed, only an instant before the accident. The defense argued that the plaintiff’s position at the painted stop block did not allow for adequate sight lines, and that under Section 3323(b) of the Motor Vehicle Code he was obligated to move forward to a point where he had a clear view of approaching traffic.

A water heater leak in a garage caused direct physical damage to the property, and our client paid the plaintiffs $956.95 for damages sustained to the garage, after applying the $1,000 policy deductible. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant breached the contract of insurance by failing to fully indemnify them for all the property damage caused by the water leak. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed: (1) the defendant underpaid for the garage by not allowing for “detach and reset of the water heater” in the amount of $600; (2) water from the water heater leak into the garage traveled through the crawlspace of the garage and caused the master bathroom vanity to warp; and (3) there was damage to “one” loose tile located on the toe-kick of the vanity that cannot be matched, requiring the replacement of the entire continuous tile in the home. The plaintiffs claimed total damages in the amount of $52,930.95. We defended the case at trial, arguing that the damages were limited to only the garage. Furthermore, we presented a case to the jury premised upon science, that is, water could not have traveled through the crawlspace of the garage for nine feet and caused damage to the master bathroom vanity, as the plaintiffs claim, without defying the laws of gravity.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a commercial tenant in a premises liability case. The plaintiff brought suit against our client, the commercial landlord and the City of Newark. The plaintiff alleged that the parties failed to maintain a condition of the sidewalk that caused a trip and fall. We moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification, arguing that the co-defendant commercial landlord was obligated under the language of the lease to indemnify our client for the landlord’s own negligence. At oral arguments, we were able to establish that the language of the lease was clear and that it was undisputed that our client had no duty to the plaintiff. Furthermore, we were able to argue that the motion was not premature, as the co-defendant’s opposition conceded that, based on the language of the lease, we had no duty. The judge agreed with our arguments, and the court granted our motion for summary judgment and required the landlord to indemnify our client.

We won dismissal of a professional negligence case against a surveyor filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. ​This action was filed by two title companies that had paid a title insurance claim to a property purchaser and sought subrogation from our client, a surveying company. They alleged that a defective survey was the cause of the title insurance claim. Ohio has a four-year statute of limitations for professional negligence claims against surveyors, and this case was filed more than four years after the allegedly defective survey was completed, rendering it untimely. The plaintiffs attempted to avoid dismissal by captioning their claims as claims for breach of contract, in order to take advantage of a longer limitations period. We argued that, despite how the claims were captioned, they were, in substance, claims for professional negligence and time-barred. The court agreed and dismissed the case.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a national water company. ​After securing all prior medical records, the defense  uncovered a past medical history of similar complaints and treatment, and a later fall that was not disclosed by the claimant. After questioning, the claimant admitted to the nature and extent of his prior treatment, including office visits, prescription medication and MRIs, which supported our contention that his prior complaints were virtually identical. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was not credible because his testimony contradicted the defense medical expert. Additionally, the judge found the defense medical expert to be competent, credible, persuasive and showed that the claimant was fully recovered from his work injuries, the resulting three surgeries, and all residuals. As such, the termination petition was granted.

We successfully defended a machine shop in the litigation of a claim petition involving post-concussion syndrome. The claimant was struck in the head with a wrench while repairing a machine for the employer. The carrier accepted a head laceration by way of medical only notice of compensation payable. The claimant was treated for a laceration to the side of his head and released to return to work. Several months later, he was taken out of work by his treating neurologist for symptoms allegedly related to post concussive syndrome. The claimant then returned to modified duties within new work release restrictions. He abandoned that job several weeks later, alleging he was totally disabled due to post concussive syndrome. We presented surveillance evidence demonstrating the claimant’s ability to perform all activities of daily living. A nationally renowned neurologist testified that, while the claimant suffered a mild concussion at the time of injury, he did not suffer from post concussive syndrome and was fully recovered. The claimant’s co-workers testified that they observed the claimant after the injury, and the claimant was able to continue working with no signs of post concussive problems. We cross examined the claimant, and it was discovered that he was performing work duties on his own in the carpentry field, despite alleging he was totally disabled. The workers’ compensation judge opined that the claimant’s injuries were limited to the head laceration and mild concussion, and then concluded that those injuries had fully recovered. The claimant was due no additional workers’ compensation benefits other than what he had already received. The claim petition for disability was dismissed.

We were successful on a motion to dismiss an action against a financial planning and investment firm and its employee, a certified financial planner, filed in Federal District Court in Maryland. The plaintiffs claimed that the financial planner advised them to purchase a life insurance policy that was indexed to the stock market and that he made certain representations about the expected return on investment, which never came to fruition. Instead, according to the plaintiffs, the value of the policy plummeted, and they lost significantly on their investment. The court dismissed all claims against the firm, agreeing that the company could not be liable for the alleged advice given to the plaintiffs by the financial planner, inasmuch as the firm did not exist at the time the alleged advice was given. Also, the court dismissed a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the financial planner, agreeing that both federal and state courts in Maryland do not recognize a standalone cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty when only monetary damages are sought. As well, the court dismissed a conversion claim against the financial planner, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly demonstrate the financial planner wrongfully exercised ownership or dominion over their finances.

We were successful in obtaining the dismissal of the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claims against an adult inpatient drug rehabilitation center. The plaintiff filed a complaint under wrongful death and survival acts, alleging that the decedent died of unspecified cardiac dysrhythmia while she was a voluntary inpatient resident at the facility. The complaint included claims of negligence/vicarious liability and corporate negligence. We filed preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the corporate negligence claim against the facility. We argued that the plaintiff’s cause of action for corporate negligence against it must be dismissed with prejudice because the doctrine of corporate negligence, as a matter of law, does not extend to drug and alcohol treatment facilities but, instead, applies only to hospitals, HMOs, nursing homes and professional medical corporations. In response, the plaintiff argued that the preliminary objections should be overruled because she alleged in the complaint that the defendant owed the same duties to the decedent that are owed to patients by hospitals, as set forth in Thompson v. Nason, the seminal corporate negligence case. The court ultimately rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, sustained our preliminary objections, and dismissed the plaintiff’s corporate negligence claim against the defendant, with prejudice.

We obtained a ruling granting summary judgment in favor of an insurance broker and two Lloyds syndicates in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. ​The case involved a claim arising from a fall from a tree stand at a hunting camp. The plaintiff suffered spinal fractures when he fell out of the tree stand. He obtained judgment against the owner of the hunting outfitter business and then sought to recover under two policies of insurance issued to the business and a hunting club operated by the same individual. There was a stipulated judgment of $2 million, and a supplemental complaint was brought where the only issue was coverage under two $1 million policies. Accepting Marshall Dennehey’s arguments, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on the grounds that the broker had no obligations under the policies and that the policies were not written to insure commercial hunting activities or the premises where the accident occurred.

​In its order, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Superior Court that had affirmed a Board decision regarding the compensability of travel expenses for trips to and from medical appointments. The claimant had petitioned for parking and toll expenses incurred during her trips to visit a doctor at University of Pennsylvania from her residence in Dover, Delaware. Although the amounts in question were low, the case is significant as it potentially applies to every Delaware workers’ compensation case. Specifically, the court agreed with the employer’s arguments that the plain language of the applicable Delaware statute provides that mileage expenses are to be reimbursed by the employer for travel to and from compensable medical appointments.

​The issue involved whether the injured employee was the statutory employee of our client, or of the subcontractor who actually hired him. The injured worker was hired by a subcontractor during the aftermath of the Category 5 storm, Hurricane Michael, that hit near Panama City, Florida on October 10, 2018. The subcontractor’s company could not provide hiring paperwork that would have confirmed workers’ compensation coverage by the employee leasing company due to lack of electricity, internet connections and cellular service. Therefore, the parties agreed that the hiring paperwork would be hand delivered to the risk manager for the employee leasing company. The worker was injured one day before the hiring paperwork was hand delivered, but after the parties had agreed on hand delivery of the paperwork. The court found this to be sufficient evidence of detrimental reliance and of a disputed issue of material fact that the motion for summary judgment was denied.

We prevailed at the trial court level and on appeal in a medical malpractice action filed against a Florida hospital and three of its trauma/critical care physicians. ​It was alleged that the patient was overmedicated with narcotics during her 64-day hospital stay, resulting in acute respiratory failure and other complications, which caused her death. The plaintiff’s sole expert on liability and causation was a retired internal medicine physician. On the eve of trial, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the plaintiff’s expert lacked the requisite qualifications under Florida law to render opinions against the hospital and its three specialist physicians. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment without an opinion and granted the defendants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

We prevailed on an appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeal in a medical malpractice action filed against a hospital and three of its trauma/critical care physicians. ​It was alleged that the patient was over-medicated with narcotics during her 64-day hospital stay, resulting in acute respiratory failure and other complications, which caused her death. The plaintiff’s sole expert on liability and causation was a retired internal medicine physician. On the eve of trial, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s expert lacked the requisite qualifications under Florida law to render opinions against the hospital and its three specialist physicians. The Fifth District affirmed the final judgment without an opinion and granted the defendants’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant, a New York doctor with no connection to New Jersey, was sued in New Jersey by a former patient who was a New Jersey resident. The court first found that the defendant did not waive consideration of the issue by waiting until after a dispute concerning the sufficiency of the affidavit of merit was resolved. The court then found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was simply insufficient to establish either general or specific jurisdiction. The fact that the doctor had no connection to New Jersey and that the treatment occurred in New York were key to the decision, as the advertising activity by the New York hospital where the doctor is on staff, which the plaintiff relied upon, was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over the physician, especially as those activities had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s decision to treat with the defendant. In a published decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Prevailed at trial in Broward County in defense of a property management company of a tax-credit housing community in Lauderhill. The plaintiff, the corporate owner of the property, brought claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and statutory breaches in the management and operation of the property. The case was litigated over seven years, and the plaintiff had sought millions of dollars in damages. After a week of the plaintiff’s testimony, and eviscerating cross-examinations, we were successful in obtaining a directed verdict.   

We successfully defended a significant dog mauling case against a landlord defendant. ​The plaintiff was fortunate to have survived the attack and suffered severe permanent physical and emotional trauma. The parties stipulated to damages of $1.75 million and submitted the case to binding arbitration on liability only. The case rested entirely on the credibility of the landlord who claimed that he had no knowledge that the tenant had a dog on the property. The law requires that the landlord know that the dog is present on the leased property and has actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. There was a lot of evidence that the dog had exhibited very aggressive behavior to anyone it came into contact with prior to the event. The plaintiff argued that the landlord had to know of the presence of the dog and its dangerous propensities given the number of times the landlord visited the property. The arbitrator found in favor of the plaintiff and against the tenant only.

We represented a plumbing subcontractor in a case venued in Supreme Court, Bronx County. ​The plaintiff alleged he sustained serious neck and back injuries as a result of falling pipes. The plaintiff had been hired by a subcontractor involved with boiler replacement work at a large residential building located in Manhattan. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law Section 200, 240 and 241(6). These claims were alleged against the building owner, management company and various subcontractors at the site. The plaintiff alleged he sustained cervical and lumbar injuries resulting in a cervical fusion and lumbar discectomy. He also allegedly sustained a fracture of the thoracic spine. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claimed he could not return to work. The settlement demand made before the motions were filed was in excess of $10 million. The court granted our summary judgment motion in its entirely and dismissed all claims against our client on the basis that our client had absolutely no involvement with the accident, having only performed work on the upper floors of the building. The court order also granted the cross motions by the other defendants, resulting in a complete dismissal of all claims against all defendants.

The plaintiff, a suspended high school principal, claimed that the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act had been violated when the doors to the administration building had been locked at the start of the first day of her termination hearing. The court considered the issues of whether a plaintiff is denied a right under the Pennsylvania School Code when access to the hearing room by the public is barred, and whether a public hearing qualifies as “official action” within the meaning of the Sunshine Act. The court found that the public hearing required by the school code is not concurrently a “meeting” within the meaning of the Sunshine Act and subject to its provisions. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a boxing gym. ​The plaintiff, a seasoned boxing coach, claimed to have been injured when he fell out of a boxing ring during a sparring match at the defendant’s gym. The plaintiff asserted that while standing on the apron with his back to the ring, he was struck by one of the fighters and propelled out and onto the floor. He alleged the defendant was negligent because the boxing ring was “too high” and the flooring surface “too hard.” In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found first that the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff because Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on sports facilities to protect spectators from risks that are common, frequent, and expected, and that the circumstances surrounding the incident eliminate any duty on the part of the defendant. The court also held that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s contentions that the boxing ring was too high or that the lack of padding on the surrounding floor was a deviation from an established custom. In fact, the evidence established that the boxing ring complied with national boxing regulations. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff did not appeal the decision.

The claimant had established that he had worked in the coal mining industry and was exposed to coal dust for a period over 17 years. ​Medical evidence also established that the miner did indeed have coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (Black Lung). However, the judge found that the miner was not totally disabled due to his pneumoconiosis. Therefore, he was not entitled to benefits, and the claim was denied. In another Federal Black Lung benefits claim, we presented testimony to prove, through pulmonary function testing, arterial blood gas testing and medical opinion evidence, that a coal miner who had begun work in the coal mines at the age of twelve did not suffer from a totally disabling respiratory impairment that precluded him from engaging in his usual coal mine employment.

We obtained a dismissal of a legal malpractice action arising from a Law Against Discrimination and Conscientious Employment Practices Act action against a municipality and its School Board. In this complex multi-party action, our client, an expert in school law, was retained by the school district to handle a hearing against the plaintiff, a teacher and coach. The plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy among the lawyers and the school board to oust the plaintiff. There were also allegations of malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of process against the town and its attorneys. The court granted our motion and dismissed based on the litigation privilege.

The decision was later affirmed by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, and we successfully argued both the summary judgment motion and the appeal. The plaintiff, a condominium association, filed suit against the sponsor of a newly constructed mixed-use residential and commercial building in Hoboken, New Jersey. The plaintiff also sued the property management company, the general contractor and various subcontractors involved in the construction. A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued in March 2004 and the plaintiff did not commence litigation until June 2014—more than ten years after substantial completion. Therefore, the claims were barred by the ten-year Statute of Repose, N.J.S.A. § 2A14-1.1. The former property manager for the building and the sponsor entity had common ownership. The plaintiff argued the sponsor maintained control of the property by virtue of its continued involvement through the property management entity, and that the Statute of Repose did not apply to a party in actual possession and control of the property at the time that the defective and unsafe condition caused the injury or damage at issue. The Appellate Division held that the plain language of the Statute of Repose precludes any “action, whether in contract, in tort, or otherwise, to recover damages for any deficiency in the design, planning, surveying, supervision or construction of an improvement to real property, [and] any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained on account of such injury . . . more than [ten] years after the performance or furnishing of such services and construction.” N.J.S.A. 2A14-1.1(a). The court found that the claims were also barred by the six-year statute of limitations as the plaintiff alleged that the first repairs at the building were undertaken in 2004, and the complaint was not filed until 2014.

We were successful on a motion for summary judgment, thereby barring the application of the mode of operations in a slip and fall case where an alleged partially eaten sandwich was found in the aisle of the retailer. ​The facts indicated that the sandwich came from a fast-food sandwich shop within the premises and was dropped by an unidentified customer, who took the item to go and dropped it in the aisle before the plaintiff fell. The court ruled that the mode of operations did not apply because the aisle, which contained greeting cards and the like, and did not create an extension of the cafeteria within the retailer’s premises. Further, the court ruled there was no nexus to any self-serve component of the fast food restaurant’s business to the area in the retailer’s store proper where the accident occurred.

We secured the dismissal of a New York no-fault/personal injury protection (PIP) lost wages suit that carried a potential judgment of more than $1.37 million. The suit commenced in 2014, and over several years, the plaintiff was not cooperative in providing requested information. In 2018, the defense served a 90-day notice on the plaintiff, which advised that we would move for dismissal if the plaintiff did not take action or file a notice of trial within 90 days. The Rockland County Supreme Court Judge recognized that there was no activity in the case for years, but was apprehensive about dismissing the case on the spot. He scheduled an additional hearing and required the plaintiff and new counsel, if retained, to appear to discuss the case status and activity. When they did not appear, Scott successfully moved for dismissal.

We successfully tried a premises liability action to a defense verdict in favor of a resident’s association in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, and also successfully defended against the plaintiff’s appeal. ​The plaintiff, who was a community resident (formerly married to a unit owner but not an owner herself), claimed that she tripped and fell on a tree branch on common area steps at night as a result of a burned out PECO-owned lamp, and that the Association failed to ensure that the light was fixed. The plaintiff had asked for either invitee status or a hybrid charge on duty, but the court agreed with the defense that she was able to use the common areas by permission, not by invitation, making her a licensee only. This resulted in the duty owed being only to make the property as safe as it appeared. The defense presented multiple instances of notice to PECO of the burned-out light, and the plaintiff conceded the defense contention that it could not change the bulb itself because PECO owned the lamp. The plaintiff also conceded that she had been aware of the light being out for some time. The jury unanimously found in favor of the Association and, on appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict, finding that the trial court did not err by charging the jury that the plaintiff was entitled only to the care due to a licensee on the property, and not an invitee.

The defense prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a local school district. The plaintiff, a former teacher, asserted claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The defense argued in their motion that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie age discrimination claim or retaliation claim because she could not establish that she suffered from an adverse employment action. The court agreed and determined that the plaintiff's transfer to a new grade level, placement on an improvement plan, and voluntary resignation did not constitute adverse employment actions in order to establish her claims. Consequently, the court granted the school district's motion and dismissed all claims.