We represented an insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy when it was sued in a class-action complaint for injuries suffered by numerous parties who had consumed salmonella-tainted orange juice.  After our assessment of the situation, we recommended that liability be admitted and that the claims be dealt with on an individual basis to avoid nationwide class action certification.  We worked with all concerned parties to conduct discovery and to resolve through mediation the hundreds of lawsuits filed by individuals who had consumed the juice.  All claims were resolved expeditiously within available insurance limits, enhancing our client’s ability to rehabilitate its public image and remain in business.

We represented the manufacturer of a homeopathic natural food supplement in the defense of a class action product liability claim seeking a nationwide recall and other relief including attorneys fees and costs.  We successfully defeated attempts to certify the case as a class action, defeated attempts to substitute class representatives who did not adequately represent all of the purported class members, and eventually won a hotly contested motion for dismissal of the entire lawsuit for repeated discovery violations on the part of the plaintiffs.

We defended our insured client, an engineering and design firm, against claims of professional malpractice claims arising from the design and construction of a parking structure that suffered from cracking and other cosmetic problems in the structure’s concrete.  We demonstrated that our client had correctly designed the structure for the loads and stresses to be encountered, and also demonstrated problems caused by the owner’s “value engineering” of the project and by the concrete contractor’s failure to take certain necessary precautions in the pouring and curing of the concrete.  The case was settled for a modest sum at mediation.

We represented a major fireworks display company in a claim filed against it for strict liability for severe personal injuries.  The injuries were sustained when a defective fireworks shell misfired, starting a fire in an observation area that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall thirty feet onto a rocky surface.  Investigation and further discovery revealed the plaintiff’s extreme intoxication played a major factor in his injuries.  Despite the applicability of strict liability under prevailing law, we relied on a statute that would have absolved our client of all fault if the plaintiff was found to be more than fifty percent at fault for his own injuries.  This strategy allowed us to resolve the claims for a very reasonable amount.

We defended Pressure Point Control Tactics Management Systems (“PPCT”) in a three-week jury trial in Alaska superior court on a product liability claim.  PPCT developed and designed a program that teaches use-of-force techniques to all divisions of the military, Homeland Security, police forces, prisons and other security companies.  The plaintiff alleged that she had sustained injuries while participating in a PPCT program and requested damages of almost $670,000.  The jury awarded a unanimous defense verdict after only one hour of deliberations and held that the PPCT program was not defective.

We defended Smith Insurance Agency and its broker in a case claiming insurance broker negligence.  The plaintiff alleged that he requested insurance coverage for his company from our clients but that they failed to purchase it.  After tendering a claim he thought was covered, our clients informed the plaintiff that he had no such coverage.  A claim was filed against our clients for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and special relationship, negligence and misrepresentation and sought $100,000 in damages.  After a week-long jury trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in 30 minutes.

We defended a teenage bicyclist accused of causing a horrendous collision with a motorcycle on a country road. Both the plaintiff and defendant were traveling in the same direction at the time of the collision, and the plaintiff's lawyer claimed the teenager’s bicycle swerved into the motorcycle’s path, causing the collision. The plaintiff suffered massive head injuries, leaving him with severe brain injury and unable to work for the rest of his life.  The teenager also suffered a significant head injury, and neither party remembered the accident and no witness saw the actual impact.  The plaintiff’s expert claimed that the mechanics of the accident and physical evidence at the scene proved the bicycle was at fault. We pieced together testimony from witnesses who saw the motorcycle and bicycle moments before and seconds after the impact and developed our own expert testimony to discredit the plaintiff’s theory. After a hard fought trial against a top-notch plaintiff’s attorney, the jury returned a defense verdict.