Case Examples

A Sampling Of Successful Cases Handled By Our Firm

Our lawyers have tried cases around the country in our areas of practice with positive results across the board. A sampling of success in recent cases includes the following:

Corrugated Replacements, Inc. v. Johnson, 797 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied (Aug. 14, 2017) (granting summary judgment to business and business-owner on plaintiffs' claims for liability via theories of negligent entrustment, joint venture, reverse veil piercing, and vicarious liability for uncapped punitive damages under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(f))

Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Easom, No. 2:17-CV-2035 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 18, 2017) (granting summary judgment on behalf of insurer because accident did not involve "garage operations" under garage coverage liability policy issued by insurer to automobile dealer)

Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Hovlik, 2017 WL 6060600 (D.N.M. Dec. 6, 2017) (granting summary judgment in favor of insurers and refusing to reform policy to increase coverage limits to state mandated minimum financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers)

Kroll v. Brott, St. Croix Cir. Ct. no. 2015-cv-000568 (March 1, 2017), appeal dismissed, 2017AP0011175 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2017) (granting summary judgment in favor of insurer regarding scope and application of the MCS-90 Endorsement on issue of first impression under Wisconsin law)

Grange Indem. Ins. Co. v. Burns, 788 S.E.2d 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (reversing lower court and holding that the MCS-90 Endorsement did not apply to an accident involving the intrastate transportation of nonhazardous goods)

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 188 So. 3d 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) (reversing lower court and holding that excess insurer was not entitled to equitable subrogation to payment between other settling insurers)

Lucero, Jr. v. Northland Ins. Co., 346 P.3d 1154, 1155 (N.M. 2015) (reversing the New Mexico Court of Appeals and holding that insurer was only obligated to provide coverage up to the stated limit of insurance regardless of the number of vehicles separately scheduled on the policy)

National Casualty Co. v. Lawrence, 2015 WL 11120858 (N.D. Tex. June 2, 2015) (granting summary judgment to insurer based on application of employee exclusions and radius-of-use exclusion)

Lloyd's Syndicate No. 5820 v. AGCO Corp., 294 Ga. 805, 805 S.E.2d 520 (Ga. 2014) (successfully represented London Underwriters in multi-million dollar bad faith claim establishing meaningful precedent from the Georgia Supreme Court)

Miller v. Northland Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1715076 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2014) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer, holding that plaintiff co-driver was employee of motor carrier under federal regulatory definition of employee and therefore subject to policy's employee exclusion)

Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Advert. JV, LLC, 325 Ga. App. 194, 750 S.E.2d 445 (2013) (reversal of trial court's grant of summary judgment in commercial dispute, resulting in significant recovery on remand on behalf of client)

McComb v. National Casualty Co., 994 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (summary judgment granted in favor of insurer holding that the MCS-90 Endorsement only applies to the named insured motor carrier, and that the MCS-90 Endorsement only applies once to a single accident, regardless of the number of insureds involved)

Northland Ins. Co. v. Top Rank Trucking, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130961 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2013) (summary judgment granted in favor of insurer holding that the MCS-90 Endorsement was not applicable because the motor carrier was not transporting property in interstate commerce at the time of the accident)