Experience

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to share that Partner Megan Michaud recently secured a complete summary judgment victory in a high stakes wrongful death action arising out of an incident in Middletown, Connecticut.

Law firms across the country are facing a renewed and increasingly sophisticated wave of fraudulent email and wire transfer scams targeting attorneys engaged in settlement negotiations, real estate transactions, and other matters involving the transfer of funds. These schemes- commonly referred to as Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams, pose significant financial, reputational, and professional liability risks to legal professionals and their clients.

California courts have long emphasized that civil litigation is not meant to reward surprise. The recent decision in McDonald v. Zargaryan (2025) 177 Cal.App.5th 344 offers a clear and forceful reminder that expert disclosure rules are not procedural niceties but structural safeguards designed to protect fairness, efficiency, and the integrity of the trial process.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to share the achievement of a significant appellate victory in the First Department of New York, securing a complete reversal of the lower court's decision. The team consisted of a group of talented attorneys including New York Co-Managing Partner James Tyrie; Partner Jennifer Provost; Senior Associate Lauren Davies; and Associate, Chloe Hassenfratz.

Facial recognition and biometric surveillance are becoming normalized in the retail environment, not accompanied by broad public debate but through quiet deployment in everyday spaces like grocery stores. A recent controversy involving biometric-collection signage at Wegmans Grocery Stores illustrates how quickly routine loss-prevention practices can trigger heightened legal exposure. Unlike many AI accountability disputes, biometric surveillance is already governed by a growing patchwork of state and local laws, and retailers implementing these tools may face a risk profile that includes statutory damages, regulatory enforcement, and consumer class actions, often regardless of whether any shopper can prove downstream harm.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman's nationally recognized cyber defense team secured yet another victory for the client in a high stakes class action suit. Boston and Westport Managing Partner Chris Seusing and Partner Sean Patel successfully secured the voluntary dismissal of a proposed data breach class action pending in Texas state court after demonstrating that the named plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the claims. Following targeted legal analysis and strategic engagement with opposing counsel, plaintiff's counsel agreed to dismiss the action, bringing the matter to a decisive close at an early stage.

A recent California appellate decision involving two children who fell from a second-story bedroom window offers an important clarification for property owners, managers, and counsel who routinely deal with renovations in older buildings. In Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, the court drew a firm distinction between general negligence and negligence per se. In doing so, it held that the Building Code's "original materials" exemption does not apply to complete window replacements, and that modern window-safety requirements continue to apply when older buildings undergo alterations.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a major litigation victory in Louisiana, securing summary judgment for certain London based insurance syndicates in a significant dispute connected to a multimillion-dollar first-party property claim arising from a 2022 storm event at an academic learning center in Baton Rouge. The underlying property claim is valued at approximately $7.5 million, amplifying the importance of eliminating ancillary litigation risk.

New York's civil practice rules are entering a new era of procedural efficiency, with two amendments that will impact everyday litigation strategy in state court. First, the Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act, which significantly modifies CPLR 1007 by imposing strict time limits on third-party practice. Governor Hochul signed the Act on December 19, 2025, and the changes become effective on April 18, 2026.

In a certified published opinion with significant implications for premises liability, residential inspections, and the scope of the Privette doctrine, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homeowner whose property was the site of a work-related injury to an independent contractor's employee. Andrews v. Wagner confirms that homeowners may qualify as "hirers" for Privette purposes even when an inspection is arranged through an insurance carrier, and it reinforces the narrow application of the Kinsman concealed-hazard exception where the alleged danger is open, obvious, and within the scope of the contractor's work.

In an significant opinion, the California Court of Appeal reaffirmed a principle increasingly decisive in transportation-related litigation. When high-quality video footage tells a clear, objective story, courts may rely on it to resolve disputed narratives and dispose of negligence claims as a matter of law. In Agustin v. Golden Empire Transit District (No. F088135 (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2025), the court affirmed summary judgment for a public transit agency and its driver after a long-time rider fell while standing on a moving bus. Despite allegations of negligence, the video showed no evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, it showed a passenger standing unbraced while holding a bag and a cell phone during an ordinary turn. For transit operators, public entities, and insurers, the case underscores the power of onboard camera evidence and clarifies the boundaries of common carrier liability.

Wrongful death litigation involving generative AI is no longer hypothetical. A new lawsuit arising from the death of an Connecticut woman, tests whether existing tort doctrines can be extended to alleged harmed caused not by a human advisor or professional, but by an AI system built to stimulate conversation, reinforce user engagement, and respond convincingly even in sensitive contexts. This case highlights the central legal question courts are increasingly being asked to answer: Can an AI developer be held responsible under negligence or product liability frameworks when their product is alleged to foreseeably amplify delusion, dependency, or paranoia?

Illinois rarely makes quiet changes to its legal landscape. When the state acts, it tends to do so decisively, often with an eye toward being out in front of national trends. The laws taking effect in 2026 are no exception. Taken together, they tell a clear story about what lawmakers are paying attention to right now. Artificial intelligence creeping into everyday decision-making, growing frustration with property misuse, a renewed focus on environmental restoration, and continued expansion of worker and consumer protections.

Oregon's 2026 laws read less like a routine legislative update and more like a snapshot of a state actively reshaping the rules around work, technology, and consumer protection. From artificial intelligence and digital privacy to wage liability, healthcare coverage, and online commerce, lawmakers have taken a clear position on issues that are no longer theoretical. The result is a set of statutes that reach deeply into how businesses operate, how data is handled, and how individuals are protected in an a increasingly digital economy.

In Semaho v. AMCO Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado addressed a familiar but consequential problem in commercial property insurance. Namely, how percentage deductibles apply when wind damages property that does not fit neatly into traditional "building" or "personal property" categories.

In the digital age, the line between private thought and public record has blurred. As artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, become embedded in everyday life, new vulnerabilities emerge in the legal and investigative landscape. What may feel like a solitary, confidential chat is rarely private. For instance, in a recent case surrounding the California Pacific Palisades wildfire investigation, one piece of evidence involved AI-generated outputs and prompts entered into ChatGPT. Officials used digital evidence including images generated on ChatGPT to connect the accused to the crime.^[i] While the particulars of that case remain under seal, the takeaway is ChatGPT searches and results can eventually become part of the record. This article will examine this question from a legal-risk perspective and discuss the vulnerabilities of chats entered into AI platforms. Users must recognize that AI conversations may not remain private. They may be logged, retrievable, and producible in litigation, regulatory investigation, or criminal prosecution.

Child death cases occupy a unique and complicated space in civil litigation. They combine profound emotional weight with complex medical and difficult factual questions, often against the backdrop of jurors' instinctive belief that someone must be held responsible. In that environment, even a strong defense can unravel quickly, damages can inflate rapidly, and moral judgment can eclipse legal standards.

Wood, Smith, Henning and Berman announced today that Partners Kamela Devole and Sarah Connor obtained summary judgment on behalf of the firm's clients in a premises liability action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The ruling resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the defendants, who owned a property listed for rent through a vacation property rental company.

A coordinated, cross-office effort between WSHB's Jacksonville and Tampa teams delivered a decisive victory in a high-exposure personal injury lawsuit involving significant alleged damages at a commercial storage facility.

A Los Angeles County jury returned a complete defense verdict following an eight-day jury trial in a hotly contested medical malpractice action arising from an in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure. The verdict marks Partner Ryan Deane's third defense trial victory in the past 18 months and further solidifies his reputation as a formidable trial advocate in complex personal injury/medical negligence cases.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to report a decisive victory as Partners James Tyrie, Jennifer Provost and Charlene Lanez along with Senior Associate Matthew Lavoie, prevailed on a motion for summary judgment that resulted in the complete dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. The court delivered a well-developed, detailed order and decision, bringing a complete and favorable resolution to a case that had drawn significant public attention to the local community.

The Dallas team of Wood Smith Henning & Berman achieved a decisive summary judgment victory on behalf of a nationwide restaurant chain in a premises liability action alleging negligence arising from a claimed slip-and-fall incident at the restaurant's entrance. The team was led by Dallas Managing Partner Christine Atwood and Senior Counsel Larissa Wakelin.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to share a significant appellate victory secured under Partner Christine Atwood. The Second Court of Appeals in Forth Worth affirmed a trial court order granting complete summary judgment in favor of a wedding venue owner. The ruling eliminated negligence claims seeking more than $1 million in alleged damages and reinforces important statewide principles governing premises-liability law.

The Tampa office of Wood Smith Henning & Berman achieved a noteworthy win after the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed in full the trial court's dismissal with prejudice, a contentious civil action against one of the nation's leading real estate development and affordable housing organizations. The WSHB team was comprised of Partner Ryan Schoeb, Senior Counsel Caitlin Reese, and Senior Associate Teddy Bilirakis.

Arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for many employers and businesses to resolve workplace and consumer disputes. However, California legislation, namely Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.98, and recent cases construing it strictly, introduced procedural hurdles that jeopardized the enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court clarified the standards that apply to this situation, addressing whether (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA, 9 U.S.C., § 1, et. seq,) preempts Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, a provision of the California Arbitration Act (CAA, Code Civ. Proc., § 1280 et. seq.) that governs the timely payment of arbitration fees in employment and consumer disputes; (2) section 1281.98 should be strictly construed as effectuating the waiver of a party’s right to enforce arbitration if payment for the same is even one day late; and (3) section 1281.98 is applicable when an arbitration agreement unambiguously calls for enforcement of the same under the FAA.  

In recent years, New York courts and insurers have confronted a troubling rise in suspicious personal-injury claims tied to the construction industry. Patterns have emerged revealing the same lawyers, the same doctors, the same "witnesses," and, increasingly, the same litigation funders appearing across clusters of questionable accidents. These cases often follow a script. They involve rapid referrals to preferred medical providers, identical fact patterns, outsized treatment plans, and quick demands for high-value settlements. As insurers and defendants push back, courts are being asked to decide how far discovery may reach when the record suggests an orchestrated effort to manufacture claims for financial gain.

The case of Moss & Associates, LLC v. Daystar Peterson and Brickell Heights East Condominium Association, Inc. represents a quiet but significant correction in Florida construction law litigation. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order that denied a contractor's motion to stay litigation under Chapter 558, Florida Statutes.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman achieved a significant appellate victory in Allen v. Patel, in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial on liability and compensatory damages. The court held that pervasive plaintiff attorney misconduct fundamentally compromised the integrity of the jury's verdict and irreparably prejudiced the defense. The WSHB team led by Greg Amundson, Stephen Caine, and Fred Vasquez claimed victory for the client through superb advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to professionalism and decorum in the courtroom.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to share a significant win in Kings County Supreme Court, New York, where the court granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims against the property owner client based on the "trivial defect" doctrine. Senior Associate Colin Brucia secured the dismissal by marshalling compelling expert testimony and exposing fatal deficiencies in the plaintiff's evidentiary showing.

A Tulare County jury has returned a highly favorable verdict for a major national grocery chain, awarding $100,000 in damages, an amount suggested by defense counsel, and far below the $1.6 million requested by plaintiff. The defense team was led by Partner David Benton, who guided the case through trial and emphasized that the disputed medical causation did not support the plaintiff's claimed cervical fusion surgery and extensive damages.

California's discovery statutes serve several foundational goals within civil litigation. They promote fair resolution of disputes, facilitate the efficient exchange of information, and ensure that parties comply with procedural obligations designed to narrow issues and avoid unnecessary gamesmanship. Discovery sanctions, and, more specifically, fee-shifting, operate within this framework as tools that encourage compliance, deter misuse, and protect the integrity of the judicial process. Fee-shifting serves the additional function of placing the financial burden caused by discovery violations on the party and/or counsel responsible for the misconduct, instead of the innocent litigant.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce a significant victory on behalf of a national insurance carrier in a coverage dispute before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The Court granted our client's motion for judgment on the pleadings, deciding in favor of the insurer in a case involving claims-made coverage under an Employment Practices Liability ("EPL") policy endorsement.

In Bean v. City of Thousand Oaks, a decision with meaningful implications for public entities, insurers, and defense counsel, the California Court of Appeal held that a codefendant with an adverse interest may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment, even if it has not filed a cross-complaint. The court reaffirmed that standing turns on adverse interests, not pleading posture. Despite correcting the trial court's procedural error, the Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed the summary judgment for the adjacent homeowner because no triable issue of fact existed regarding her control over the sidewalk or the parkway tree that allegedly caused the plaintiff to trip and fall.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce that Of Counsel Nicholas Gedo and Partner Vanessa Herzog successfully obtained a summary judgment in favor of their client, a California employer wrongfully sued in a workplace injury action. The ruling brings an end to the plaintiff's lawsuit and affirms the strength of the statutory protections governing independent-contractor classification and workers' compensation exclusivity.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce the achievement of a decisive appellate victory in a highly contested dog bite case involving a minor plaintiff and alleged damages reaching tens of millions of dollars. The California Court of Appeal granted the firm's petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its prior order denying summary judgment and to enter a new order granting the firm's motion for summary judgment in full.

Construction projects often involve intricate designs, multiple stakeholders, and complex performance obligations. When problems surface years after completion, parties must navigate a difficult landscape that blends contract law, tort doctrines, and statutory deadlines. A recent decision from the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas provides meaningful guidance on how courts will evaluate latent construction defect claims, the applicability of the discovery rule, and the limits of the economic loss doctrine. In Morningside Ministries v. Koontz McCombs Construction, Ltd., the court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the general contractor and project manager, reviving the owner's claims and offering important lessons for owners, contractors, and insurers facing construction defect disputes.

Construction defect litigation often turns on questions of timing as much as on the substance of alleged deficiencies. In Pennsylvania, the statute of repose governing construction projects provides builders and contractors with a powerful defense that can extinguish claims long before they are filed. The recent decision in Aloia v. Diament Building Corp., underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing the statutory bar, even in cases framed under consumer protection laws or premised upon allegations of building code violations.

California's insurance market is in free fall. Following the catastrophic Altadena and Pacific Palisades fires and a string of other climate-driven disasters, families and businesses are finding themselves underinsured, uninsured, or entangled in endless disputes with their carriers over smoke damage, contents coverage, and basic claims processing. The California FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan), once a "last resort" backstop, is rapidly becoming the default option, even though its coverage limits and terms are deeply inadequate for the realities of California's housing stock, commercial markets, and wildfire risks. 

California is on the cusp of a significant shift in the landscape of survival litigation. For decades, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34 barred recovery of a decedent's pain, suffering, or disfigurement in survival actions, limiting those claims to economic damages the decedent sustained before death. This framework placed California among the minority of jurisdictions that prohibited noneconomic survival damages.

Beginning January 1, 2026, Oregon will enter a new era of construction defect law. House Bill 3746, touted as "major construction reform," marks one of the most significant shifts in the state's approach to condominium and planned community liability in decades.

Mediation has become a mainstay of modern litigation. Courts encourage it, insurers rely on it, and parties treat it as a practical path to resolution without the staggering cost of trial. Yet despite its ubiquity, many lawyers and claims professionals still approach mediation as an informal discussion, a chance to see where things stand, or worse, a fishing expedition.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman, led by Partner Luana DiSarra Scavone and assisted by Senior Associate Brandon P. Ruggieri, secured a significant victory on behalf of our client, a former property management company, in a complex case arising from a catastrophic fire that involved two wrongful death actions and four personal injury lawsuits, plus other potential claimants not yet identified. Despite tenacious opposition and the complicated discovery posture, the court granted the firm's motion for summary judgment, finalizing the case in the client's favor and the judicial decision was not appealed by any party.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) is proud to announce a decisive and sweeping defense victory secured by Partner Melanie Thomas and Senior Counsel Rena Hughes, who prevailed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The ruling eliminates every claim against the firm’s client in a case involving allegations of severe burns, infection, and disfigurement arising from a non-laser chemical tattoo removal procedure.

The Wood Smith Henning & Berman Orlando trial team recently delivered a significant victory for a national home builder, obtaining three separate summary judgment rulings that resulted in a complete dismissal of all claims in a premises liability action in which the plaintiff demanded a seven-figure settlement.

The Supreme Court of Texas has sharply limited when foreign manufacturers can be sued in the state, ruling that an Austrian aircraft-engine maker cannot be hauled into Texas courts over a crash at a local airport. The opinion reinforces Texas' strict application of the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test and underscores that merely foreseeing a product's eventual arrival in Texas is not enough to establish specific personal jurisdiction.

The Wood Smith Henning & Berman team led by Senior Counsel Sean Patel and Partner Chris Seusing, recently secured a voluntary dismissal in a significant pixel class action filed against one of the largest credit unions in Indiana and Michigan. The lawsuit alleged improper data sharing using website tracking technology.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is happy to report that Senior Counsel Sean Patel and Partner Chris Seusing successfully secured a voluntary dismissal on behalf of a major health care provider operating in Arizona and Texas, bringing a swift and favorable resolution to a recently filed data breach lawsuit.

In a complex case led by Senior Counsel Sean Patel, Wood Smith Henning & Berman secured a voluntary dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed against one of the largest healthcare providers in Arizona following a third-party data breach.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) is pleased to announce a significant victory obtained by Senior Counsel Arthur Rushforth, who successfully secured an order enforcing a settlement agreement in a contentious New York case involving a self-represented (pro se) plaintiff.

In a cautionary decision that marks California's first published opinion on the misuse of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for defendants in a routine employment dispute but used the case to address an extraordinary issue. In Noland v. Land of the Free, LP, the court discovered that nearly every quoted authority in the plaintiff's appellate briefs were fabricated. Entire passages were falsely attributed to published opinions, many cited cases did not discuss the referenced issues, and several authorities did not exist at all. According to the opinion, plaintiff's counsel relied on generative AI tools to draft briefs without verifying citations or reading the underlying cases.

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida Statute §553.837 imposes a mandatory one-year warranty on all newly constructed residential homes, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and modular or factory-built units that have never previously been occupied. This statutory requirement establishes a robust baseline of guarantees for homeowners but also introduces new exposures for builders that typical Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies may not fully address.

Courts have long recognized that sanctions may be imposed when a party destroys evidence relevant to pending claims. The Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Keaten v. Terra Management Group, LLC clarifies a critical question for litigants, property managers, and counsel alike: At what point does the duty to preserve evidence arise before a lawsuit is filed? The ruling delineates an objective, fact-specific standard for determining when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable." The Court's opinion provides both clarity and caution, reinforcing that the preservation obligation extends beyond pending lawsuits to situations where litigation is likely or imminent.

In a significant victory for the defense, Wood Smith Henning & Berman partner Kate Adams, successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the defendant insured following oral argument before the Connecticut Superior Court. The court's ruling in the insured's favor brought a decisive end to a high-exposure premises liability action.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman partner Graham Miller and senior counsel Kenneth Hepworth successfully defended an appeal before the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon in a wrongful death action arising from a traffic accident. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding no basis for imposing liability on WSHB's clients.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is elated to announce a favorable result secured by Senior Counsel Megan Michaud and Partner Kate Adams in a long-running case that was pending before the Office of Public Hearings (OPH) at the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance brokers have a duty to notify clients of an insurer's nonrenewal decision. In Deer v. National General Ins. Co., homeowners, whose policy lapsed before their home was destroyed by a fire, sought to hold their longtime brokers liable for failing to alert them to the insurer's communication regarding nonrenewal. The Court rejected the claim, reaffirming that a broker's duty ordinarily ends once the requested policy is procured, and that liability arises only if the broker affirmatively undertakes to assist with renewals.

On August 1, 2025, a Miami jury rendered a verdict that immediately reverberated through the products liability community. In Benavides v. Tesla, jurors awarded more than $240 million in damages, including $200 million in punitive damages, after finding Tesla partially responsible for a fatal 2019 motor vehicle accident involving its Autopilot system. The verdict was the first in the United States to hold Tesla liable in a wrongful death action tied directly to Tesla's Autopilot's operation, and it arrived after years of litigation and intense public scrutiny over advanced driver-assist systems. Tesla has vowed to appeal, and post-trial motions will almost certainly test the size and constitutionality of the punitive damages award.

In Kronfeld v. Malone, the New Jersey Appellate Division reaffirmed the judiciary's firm stance on discovery management and procedural compliance. The plaintiff, Natalia Kronfeld, pursued a series of legal malpractice actions – first against her former divorce attorneys, and later against the attorney who represented her in the malpractice suit. After nearly 1,300 days of discovery and eight separate motions for extensions, the trial court drew a line by denying further discovery and ultimately granting summary judgment to the defense.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP successfully defended a complex, high-profile lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the plaintiff — a former investigative journalist known for undercover work on terrorism, Chinese espionage, and political scandals — claimed his archive, allegedly worth more than $30 million, was wrongfully destroyed by an apartment complex.

A recent decision by the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal exemplifies how exceptional facts can lead to problematic legal precedent. In a case involving a rear-end collision, the court departed from established insurance law principles to impose bad faith penalties on an insurer, despite the claim being brought by a third party and the underlying issue being one of first impression.

In a noteworthy ruling for school districts and educational facilities statewide, the Arizona Supreme Court held that Phoenix Union High School District No. 210 (the "District") did not owe a duty of care to a student who was struck by a vehicle while jaywalking across a public street on his way to school. The decision, Phoenix Union High School District No. 210 v. Hon. Joan M. Sinclair and Christopher Lucero, reaffirms the boundaries of a school's legal responsibility for student safety and narrows the application of the school-student special relationship to situations where the student is under the school's custody and control.

In a recent decision, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed a recurring point of contention in property insurance disputes. It tackled the issue of whether an insurer's policy defense, such as late notice, can block an insured's right to appraisal. The court's ruling provides important guidance for insurers and policyholders alike, reaffirming the appraisal process is independent from the resolution of certain coverage defenses. The opinion highlights the need for conscientious contract interpretation and strategic litigation planning when policy conditions and appraisal clauses intersect.

In a closely watched case with broad implications for public companies and cybersecurity disclosures, SolarWinds Corporation has reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle a high-profile enforcement action alleging securities fraud tied to a major cyberattack. The proposed settlement, which still requires formal approval from the SEC, prompted a federal judge in New York to pause all proceedings while the final terms are reviewed and finalized.

In a widely- watched decision, Lillian Carranza v. City of Los Angeles, the court determined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a female LAPD Captain was entitled to $4 million in non-economic damages after a jury found she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The case centered on an AI generated deepfake nude image circulated within the department that was falsely represented as the Captain. Despite her high-ranking status and clear evidence of widespread dissemination among officers, the City of Los Angeles argued that Carranza had not experienced direct, face-to-face harassment and therefore, a hostile work environment was not present. However, the court's decision underscores that harassment under FEHA can be established through knowledge of inappropriate conduct and the creation of a toxic work environment, even when the actions are not aimed directly at the victim.

In a case of first impression, Thomas v. Corbyn Restaurant Development, Corp., the California Court of Appeal clarified how courts should allocate risk when a cybercriminal diverts settlement funds through a fraudulent scheme. The case arose from a $475,000 personal injury settlement. Before payment was made, an unknown third party, masquerading as plaintiff's counsel, sent spoofed emails to defense counsel containing fraudulent wire instructions. Relying on those emails, defense counsel wired the funds to the imposter, who then vanished with the money.

In a decision of first impression, the California Court of Appeal in RND Contractors, Inc. v. WRSE (2025) 112 Cal.App.5^th 697, clarified whether a co-defendant may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment without having first filed a cross-complaint. The case arose from the collapse of a high school gymnasium during construction, leading to negligence, wrongful death, and premises liability claims against the project participants. The court held that "any adverse party" may oppose another party's motion for summary judgment, even if the Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and there is no cross-complaint filed by the co-defendant opposing summary judgment.

Jurisdictional deadlines are unforgiving, and increasingly, the reliability of court service practices has become as critical as the rules themselves. In the Court of Appeal's recently published decision in Wing Inflatables, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, the court rejected an attempt to dismiss an appeal as untimely, finding that the clerk's electronic service via email of a file-endorsed order did not meet the strict requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A). The decision clarified what it means for a document to "show" the date of service, consistent with rule 8.104(a)(1)(A), and reaffirms the "single document" requirement, as established by the California Supreme Court in Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Recently, there has been a significant increase in claims involving e-commerce websites, including unfair competition claims and claims involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other similar statutes.  In many instances, e-commerce companies try to compel such claims to arbitration through the arbitration provisions contained in the terms and conditions of their website.  However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to businesses relying on online "sign-in wrap" agreements to impose arbitration clauses. In Cruz v. Tapestry, the court refused to enforce an arbitration provision contained in the retailer's Terms of Use, finding that the checkout page design did not adequately notify consumers that placing an order constituted agreement to those terms.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a significant appellate win in the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, where the firm successfully defended against fraud claims. White Plains Managing Partner Michelle Arbitrio, Partner Jared Levy and their talented litigation defense team, achieved a decisive affirmance of the trial court's dismissal, protecting the client from prolonged and costly litigation.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) is proud to announce a significant defense victory in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Partner Andrew Kessler and Senior Associate Lauren McDowell successfully secured summary judgment in a complex medical malpractice matter brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In Birdsall v. Helfet, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision for insurers and defense counsel confronting policy-limits settlement demands designed as potential "bad faith set-ups." The case arose from a serious rear-end collision on the Bay Bridge that left plaintiff Gary Birdsall permanently injured. Before suit was filed, Birdsall's attorney issued a time-limited policy-limits demand to the defendant's insurer.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a major defense victory in Harris County, Texas, where partner Spencer Dunn and associate Grace Cousins obtained a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) on behalf of a trucking company and its driver in a hotly contested personal injury case.

Following a hard-fought five-week jury trial, a Rancho Cucamonga jury returned a full defense verdict in a multi-million product liability trial.  Wood Smith Henning & Berman trial partner Jade Tran together with Ashley Beagle successfully obtained a full defense verdict in favor of their client following a complex jury trial involving allegations of product liability and negligence.

Led by partner Alicia Kennon and senior associate Illise Schulman, Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully obtained a defense judgment in favor of its clients following a two-day court trial involving allegations of professional negligence in the preparation, administration, and management of a residential fumigation.

In a decision highlighting the erosion of privity as a barrier to liability in construction-related claims, a California appellate court reversed summary judgment in favor of a soils engineering firm, holding the firm owed a duty of care despite the absence of a contractual relationship with the homeowner. The case involved allegations that the firm conducted only a cursory geotechnical inspection during a residential remodeling project. When the homeowner's property later suffered substantial damage due to subsidence, she sued for professional negligence and nuisance. Although the trial court initially found no duty absent a direct contract, the appellate court disagreed recognizing a duty of care regardless of privity

In a protracted and hard-fought legal battle, Partner Andrew Kessler and Senior Counsel Sarah Connor of WSHB achieved a decisive victory on behalf of a non-profit mental health provider and its licensed professionals. The team successfully secured summary judgment against an aggressive pro se plaintiff, bringing years of contentious litigation to a close.

In Gutierrez v. Tostado (July 31, 2025), the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion clarifying that the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) does not apply to claims arising from negligent ambulance driving, even when the vehicle is engaged in patient transport. The ruling draws a decisive distinction between professional negligence, governed by MICRA, and general negligence, which remains subject to the state's two-year statute of limitations.

In a hard-fought trial in one of Florida’s most plaintiff-friendly venues, an Orlando jury rejected a $1.42 million damages claim, awarding just $95,458.06 to the plaintiff after finding him 40% at fault for his own injuries.

In a powerful one-two punch, Wood Smith Henning & Berman secured consecutive wins in Connecticut premises liability cases, each supervised by Partner Kate Adams, delivering complete dismissals of claims targeting property management clients. The victories involved two separate contentious pieces of litigation: one stemming from an alleged vicious dog attack inside a tenant's apartment, and another involving a serious injury allegedly caused by a defective sidewalk ramp. Both cases were successfully resolved at the motion stage, sparing the firm's clients the cost and risk of trial. The winning motions were argued by attorney Kendra McGuire and Senior Counsel Megan Michaud, respectively, who both effectively advocated their clients' positions before Connecticut Superior Court judges.

In a significant and hard-fought win, Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully defended a major corporation in a lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The team, composed of Senior Counsel Caitlin Mitchell and Associate Adriana Valdez, persuaded the court to grant a forum non conveniens motion and dismiss the case in favor of adjudication in South Africa, where the underlying incident occurred. The plaintiffs, two of whom reside in California, sued in the state, citing defendant's principal place of business in San Francisco. Despite the steep odds, the court agreed the case belonged elsewhere.

In a noteworthy shift for Louisiana tort law, the state legislature has enacted a new rule that eliminates a commonly used presumption in personal injury litigation. House Bill No. 450, passed and was signed into law by the Governor Jeff Landry on May 28, 2025. The new law adds Article 306.1 to the Louisiana Code of Evidence and expressly prohibits courts from presuming that an act caused an illness or injury simply because a plaintiff lacked a prior history of that condition.

Can sharing a string of numbers, such as a Facebook User ID, violate federal privacy law? Two recent federal court decisions say no, offering critical guidance for digital media companies navigating the increasingly aggressive use of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) in the online world.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman partners Frances O'Meara and Mindy Bae have secured two significant victories defeating claims brought under California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), a statute that has rapidly emerged as a major source of high-volume, high-risk litigation targeting landlords and property management companies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that reinforces the boundaries of the government's liability for design defects in federal construction contracts using the design-build bridging project delivery method. In Balfour Beatty Construction v. General Services Administration, the court partially overturned a ruling by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), finding that the bridging documents of the General Services Administration (GSA) contained design specifications that carried an implied warranty under the well-established Spearin doctrine.

In this negligence case, the California Court of Appeal, within the context of a summary judgment motion, addressed the application of alternative liability principles established in Summers v. Tice (1984) 33 Cal.2d 80. The plaintiff, Anthony Mitchell, was driving his Ferrari through Dana Point when the underside of the vehicle struck and dragged large rocks that had rolled onto the roadway from a nearby hillside. The incident caused extensive damage to the car and led to unspecified personal injuries.

In a decision with sweeping implications for tort liability and corporate defendants, the Texas Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand on the limits of employer responsibility. In Werner v. Blake ___ S.W. 3d ___ (Tex. 2025)(Cause No. 23-0493), the court reversed a $100 million verdict, holding that an employer cannot be held liable, directly or indirectly, when its employee's actions are not a proximate cause of the alleged harm. The ruling reinforces long-standing principles of Texas tort law, clarifying that claims for negligent training, supervision, or hiring cannot stand on their own when the employee's conduct is not legally linked to the injury. This decision provides important guidance for companies facing high-stakes litigation based on policy failures, operational judgments, or indirect theories of liability, particularly in transportation, logistics, and other risk-intensive industries.

In a decision with wide-reaching implications for commercial contracts, the California Supreme Court in New England Country Foods LLC v. Van Law Food Products, Inc., reaffirmed strong public policy against insulating parties from liability for willful injury. The court held that Civil Code §1668 prohibits not only contractual clauses that entirely exempt a party from liability but also provisions that merely list the available damages for willful misconduct. In doing so, the Court disapproved earlier decisions that suggested some damage limitations for intentional torts might be enforceable. This ruling sends a clear message that parties cannot bargain away accountability for intentionally harmful conduct.

The decision in Broughton v. Marcy Ave. Owners LLC, 238 A.D.3d 536(1st Dept. 2025), offers a critical reminder to defense counsel that the seemingly ironclad protections of New York Labor Law §240(1) are not insurmountable. While the statute imposes absolute liability in many elevation-related construction accident cases, Broughton demonstrates how detailed factual rebuttals, especially those grounded in sound expert analysis, can raise triable issue of facts sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

In a closely watched case stemming from a restaurant fire caused by a departure from approved construction plans, the Colorado Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the strict boundaries of the economic loss rule. In MidCentury Insurance Co, v. Hive Construction, Inc., No. 23SC267 (April 21, 2025), the court concluded a negligence claim rooted in alleged willful and wanton misconduct was barred because the duty breached was defined entirely by contract. This ruling reinforces the primacy of contract remedies in commercial construction disputes and clarifies that even allegations of reckless misconduct do not automatically convert contract-based claims into actionable torts.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is happy to announce a significant defense victory in King County Superior Court led by partner Jackie Jensen Erler. The court granted summary judgment in favor of WSHB's employer client, dismissing a premises injury lawsuit brought by a former employee. The plaintiff alleged injuries from a fall, but the court found the employer owed no actionable duty to the plaintiff due to the location where the fall occurred.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman proudly announces a significant victory in the California Court of Appeal, which upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the firm's client, a respected cardiothoracic physician, in a complex medical malpractice lawsuit.

Alif v. California Fair Plan Association, challenges the scope of insurance coverage provided by the California FAIR Plan Association (CFP), the state's insurer of last resort. The plaintiff, Jay Aliff, alleged that CFP improperly limited coverage for smoke damage under its fire insurance policies, potentially leaving policyholders without adequate protection in the event of wildfire-related losses.

California has long stood at the forefront of innovation both in technology and increasingly, in the courtroom. Over the past decade, the state has become a magnet for so-called "nuclear verdicts," jury awards that exceed $10 million, often by staggering margins. These outsized awards, once considered anomalies, have become alarmingly routine in California, reshaping the legal and business landscapes across multiple industries.

In a pivotal decision interpreting the scope of coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the Oregon Supreme Court in Twigg v. Admiral Insurance, clarified how courts should assess whether property damage arises from an "accident" when the underlying claim can be resolved by way of the contract in place rather than expanding it to a tort claim. The case centered on whether an insurer was obligated to cover damage caused by a subcontractor's faulty installation work, where the policy defined a covered "occurrence" as an "accident." Although the plaintiffs pursued only a breach of contract claim, they argued that the facts supported liability in tort, and therefore fell within the scope of the policy's coverage.

With the passage of House Bill 4127, which took effect on January 1, 2025, Oregon added a new layer of regulatory oversight for employers operating large warehouse distribution centers. The law imposes significant obligations around how productivity quotas are communicated and monitored, and it increases exposure to penalties for noncompliance. For employers, especially those leveraging performance metrics or algorithm-driven tracking systems, HB 4127 represents a meaningful shift in how warehouse labor must be managed.

In the wake of the devastating California wildfires, a noteworthy trend is unfolding that merits attention. In essence, this trend revolves around the treatment of insurance claims as a form of currency—an intricate gamble that varies significantly based on one’s position in the process.

In a move that could significantly change the allocation of damages in auto accident litigation, Louisiana's House Bill 431 restricts recovery in negligence cases by plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault. HB 431 bars any plaintiff deemed 51% or more responsible for a motor vehicle accident from recovering any damages, even for the portion attributable to the fault of other parties.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully defended a licensed child psychologist who was sued after offering professional opinions on visitation in a contentious custody case. The appeal, led by Nicholas Gedo, was successful with the Court of Appeal finding that the plaintiff's claims arose from protected activity and lacked any probability of success.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to report a decisive litigation victory on behalf of its clients, the property owners and manager of a historic building in New York City. Partner John Cofresi and Senior Counsel David Incle's legal prowess as well as exceptional motion briefing led to a complete dismissal of all claims in this multi-plaintiff action arising from a catastrophic ceiling collapse that exposed the defendants to more than $10 million in potential liability.

In a significant move to address Colorado's housing affordability crisis, Governor Jared Polis recently signed House Bill 1272, now officially known as the Colorado American Dream Act, into law. This legislation aims to remove longstanding barriers that have discouraged residential developers from building affordable, middle-market housing- particularly townhomes, duplexes, and other multi-family formats.

In a major legal victory showcasing the success of strategic risk transfer, WSHB attorneys, Senior Associate Matthew Lavoie and Senior Counsel Brad Sessa, successfully secured summary judgment against three third-party defendants in a high-exposure Labor Law case. The court's 26-page decision also dismissed all cross and counter claims, fully validating the firm's risk transfer strategy and contractual interpretation.

The death of a litigant is a material fact that must be disclosed to the court and opposing counsel without delay. This is not only a matter of procedural necessity but also an ethical requirement. When plaintiff's counsel continues litigation without disclosing their client's death, the integrity of the entire judicial process is compromised. For defense counsel, discovering that a party has been deceased for weeks or months without any notice raises serious questions of due process, fairness, and professional responsibility.

This article examines the ethical violations associated with failing to disclose a plaintiff's death, the legal consequences for plaintiff's counsel, and the steps defense attorneys should take in response.

The transportation world was permanently altered with the introduction of the autonomous vehicle. They represent one of the most significant technological advancements in transportation of our time. Proponents tout the potential of AVs to transform the way we travel while reducing human error and improving road safety. However, as the technology evolves, the insurance industry faces novel challenges in assessing liability for accidents involving these vehicles. Age old auto insurance models, which focus primarily on human driver error, are being disrupted as the field of liability has expanded to include manufacturers, software developers, and other stakeholders involved in AV technology.

In a significant decision addressing the intersection of disability rights and constitutional protection, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Tsay JBR LLC v. United States District Court (Brooke) that under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, a defendant hotel owner sued in federal district court for statutory damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) is entitled to a jury trial on those damages.

A homebuyer's claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation against the seller of a custom-built residence in Washington State were revived after the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's summary judgment. At the center of the dispute was whether the seller failed to disclose a known and serious structural issue that was identified years earlier by engineers, but never corrected. The appellate court found sufficient evidence that the seller misled the buyer about the home's stability; despite having been warned that without further remediation, the property could face future foundation failure.

The transport of lithium batteries presents significant safety and liability risks for insurers. The batteries have been linked to fires, explosions, and other hazardous incidents, making them a major concern in cargo, aviation, and personal consumer use. As global regulations continue to evolve to mitigate these risks, insurance carriers must understand the regulatory framework, liability exposures, and risk management strategies necessary to provide effective coverage.

With its decision in Medical Marijuana v. Horn, No. 23-365, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1369 at 11-12 (Apr. 2, 2025), the United States Supreme Court may have cracked open the door to a new wave of civil RICO litigation and it's one that plaintiffs' attorneys are almost certain to walk through. By holding that economic losses derivative of personal injury are not categorically excluded from RICO recovery, the Court has effectively loosened the reins on a statute originally crafted to combat organized crime. Now, as a result of the majority's expansive interpretation of "injury to business or property," plaintiffs may increasingly look to RICO as a vehicle for pursuing claims that were previously the domain of tort or employment law.

As businesses increasingly rely on chatbots and third-party tracking tools to enhance used experience on their websites, they also face heightened scrutiny under privacy laws. The recent case of Valenzuela v. Kroger outlines the challenges businesses may face when utilizing these technologies, particularly as it relates to claims alleging unauthorized data collection.

In the case of Lorenzo v. Calex Engineering, Inc., No. B331177 (March 28, 2025), the California Court of Appeal reinforced the scope of a developer's duty of care under California Civil Code section 1714. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in this wrongful death lawsuit arising from a fatal pedestrian accident involving a dump truck en route to an unauthorized construction staging area. The court applied the Rowland factors and determined that nearly all weighed against carving out an exception to the general duty of care. Further, the court held that proximate cause remained a triable issue, emphasizing the defendants' permit violations potentially increased the very risk the permitting process was designed to avoid. This decision underscores the legal responsibilities developers and contractors face when deviating from approved construction plans without proper authorization or oversight.

WSHB is thrilled to announce that after a three-week jury trial in Kern County, a jury returned an extremely favorable verdict in favor of our client. The client and the carrier are extremely pleased with the result. The case was handled by partner Summit Dhillon over the last four years, with support from trial expert and fellow partner David Webster.

WSHB is proud to announce a significant appellate win achieved by partner Richard Singer, in a case involving complex issues surrounding forced place insurance policies. The decision by Florida's Third District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's dismissal of a borrower's claim for lack of standing and delivers critical guidance on the rights of borrowers under lender-placed insurance policies.

The question of whether to enforce an arbitration agreement or proceed with traditional litigation is far from perfunctory. Indeed, it's a strategic calculation that can significantly impact the outcome of a dispute. Whether advising corporate clients, representing individuals, or navigating complex commercial relationships, attorneys must weigh the unique advantages and limitations of each forum. Arbitration offers privacy, efficiency, and finality. In contrast, litigation provides broader discovery, appellate rights, and precedential development.

On April 21, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law two historic tort reform measures. Senate Bills 68 and 69, mark the first major tort reform since 2005 and the most comprehensive overhaul of the state's civil litigation framework in decades. These legislative developments reflect a deliberate and long-awaited shift in Georgia's legal climate, as policymakers respond to mounting concerns about disproportionate "nuclear verdicts," plaintiff-favored procedures, and rising litigation costs that have rippled through industries.

Florida's latest proposed condominium law, HB-913, introduces critical changes that will have a direct impact on condominium associations, unit owners, property managers and insurers. With new requirements for financial transparency, dispute resolution, and structural compliance, these updates aim to mitigate financial and legal risks while ensuring long-term property stability. However, the added regulatory burdens may pose challenges for associations and insurers, particularly regarding compliance with milestone inspections, reserve funding, and insurance eligibility. The bill passed both houses and will go into effect on July 1, 2025.

In Raab v. Nu Skin Enters., Inc., the Washington Supreme Court resolved a long-standing procedural question regarding the enforcement of contractual forum selection clauses. The case centered on whether a motion to dismiss for improper venue under CR 12(b)(3) is the correct mechanism for enforcing such clauses when they designate a mandatory non-Washington forum. In a decision that overrules Voicelink, Inc. v. Superior Court, 86 Wn. App.618,937 P.2d 1016 (1997), and aligns with federal precedent set by Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), the court held that arguing improper venue under CR 12(b)(3) is not the appropriate procedural mechanism. The ruling provides critical guidance for litigants and courts handling contractual disputes involving forum selection clauses.

The recent tariff storm imposed by the U.S. government is predicted to have significant ramifications for the construction industry, particularly in sectors reliant on imported steel, aluminum, and lumber. These policy changes introduce new risks, contract disputes, and regulatory challenges that must be carefully navigated.

The New York Court of Appeals departed from long-standing precedent in its recent ruling in Flanders, allowing plaintiffs to pursue negligence claims for injury following a dog bite (Flanders v. Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261).

In a significant win for WSHB, partner Ryan Schoeb and associate Jonathan Garvin successfully obtained an order of dismissal in a high-exposure negligent security case stemming from a shooting at a commercial shopping center in Miami, Florida. The plaintiff, who was left paralyzed from the waist down after the incident, alleged that he was shot during a robbery gone wrong while on the property owned and managed by the client.

Led by partners Michelle Birtja and David Rubaum, Wood Smith Henning & Berman secured an excellent outcome for an orthopedic surgeon client following arbitration in a contentious medical malpractice case. The matter centered on allegations that a total right hip revision in 2019 was negligently performed, specifically regarding the surgeon's decision to retain some of the hardware over the course of five surgeries.

WSHB proudly announces another significant trial victory, achieved by partner Ryan Schoeb, who successfully defended a large commercial property owner and property manager in a high-stakes negligence suit. The trial, held in Palm Beach County, Florida, culminated in a directed verdict, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's claim during jury proceedings.

WSHB is proud to announce that a Harris County District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the client, a real estate development company, dismissing all claims in a premises liability lawsuit alleging permanent injury. This decisive victory comes amid a sharp rise in nuclear verdicts, jury awards exceeding $10 million, in Harris County and across Texas.

In recent years, Colorado has faced an escalating housing crisis, characterized by soaring prices and a shortage of affordable options. As the demand for housing continues to outpace supply, legislators are now focusing on the root cause of the housing crisis. One is the significant legal impediments that hinder the construction of much-needed residential developments that provide Colorado residents with affordable housing options. Central to this issue are the complexities surrounding construction defect claims, tenant protections, and energy code regulations. These legal frameworks, while designed to safeguard the rights of homeowners and tenants, have inadvertently contributed to the stagnation of housing growth, particularly in the realm of attached housing products such as condominiums and townhomes.

In a high-stakes liability case, WSHB delivered a decisive summary judgment victory, protecting its client from a meritless claim and underscoring the power of precision litigation strategy.

The 2025 Florida legislative session is in full swing, and a flurry of proposed bills is poised to reshape the insurance landscape in profound ways. From sweeping reforms in Senate Bill 554 to a host of new proposals targeting property insurance claims, litigation financing, and insurer practices, these measures could hit insurers operating in Florida with increased compliance costs, heightened scrutiny, and a more contentious claims and litigation environment. While many of these bills are pitched as consumer protection lifelines, the reality for insurers may be a tangle of unintended consequences—higher operational costs, liquidity risks, and a surge in disputes. At Wood Smith Henning & Berman, we’re tracking these proposals closely to keep you informed and prepared.

In a precedent-setting decision by California’s Third District Court of Appeal, the court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 998, California’s cost-shifting statute. (Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 385, as modified on denial of reh’g (May 9, 2023), review granted (Aug. 30, 2023) ¹.) The case is noteworthy because it clarifies that a plaintiff who does not accept a section 998 offer, and later obtains a less favorable result through a stipulated settlement, rather than through a formal “judgment,” may still invoke the cost-shifting provisions of section 998. The court reasoned that a contrary interpretation would undermine the purpose of CCP section 998, as it would improperly benefit a party who did not accept a section 998 offer that proved to be reasonable based on the amount that party ultimately accepted through a stipulated settlement.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to share a successful motion for summary judgment for its client in a dental malpractice suit. Led by New York partner Jeremy Chen, the case involved allegations of pain, neuralgia, bone loss and infection stemming from the removal of a dental implant, the preparation for the placement of a new implant and subsequent treatment. The court ruled in favor of our client, granting summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims were time-barred under New York's statute of limitations.

The recent wildfires in Los Angeles serve as a stark reminder of the importance of adequate property and fire insurance, particularly for homeowners in high-risk areas. In the devastating aftermath, many homeowners are discovering that their insurance policies fall short of the actual costs required to rebuild. As a result, litigation is increasingly targeting insurance agents and brokers, alleging negligence for failing to recommend or secure sufficient coverage, otherwise known as underinsurance.

Recent California wildfires have heightened concerns about the scope of coverage for smoke damage under homeowners' insurance policies. In response, the California Department of Insurance issued Bulletin 2025-7 to guide insurers in processing smoke damage claims, emphasizing that while policy language remains paramount, each claim must be evaluated on its own merits. The guidance is particularly timely in light of the recent court decision in Gharibian v. Wawanesa Gen. Ins. Co., which addressed the issue of what constitutes direct physical damage as it relates to smoke.

In the recent case of Builders FirstSource-Southeast Group, LLC v. Palmetto Trim & Renovation, (No. 2021-001050), a South Carolina court examined the validity of certain indemnity provisions in contracts used by Builders FirstSource (BFS). The case centered on whether a contractor could require subcontractors to indemnify and defend it against claims allegedly stemming from its own negligence. Ultimately, the court affirmed that the contested contract provisions violated South Carolina Code § 32-2-10. This decision reinforces the state's stance against unfair risk-shifting in construction contracts and provides a clear precedent for future contract disputes in the industry.

In a remarkable culmination of legal perseverance, trial attorney Philip Grennan of Wood Smith Henning & Berman triumphed in a fiercely contested racial discrimination trial that spanned over two grueling months. Described by Grennan as “the craziest and most challenging trial I’ve ever had in 40 years of practice,” this case underscores the exceptional dedication and expertise that WSHB brings to its clients.

The question of legal responsibility when violence erupts at events can prove complicated. In the recent case of Carmichael v. Café Sevilla, G063589 (January 7, 2025), the court examined the limits of negligence per se and the doctrine of ultra hazardous activities. After the event, Plaintiffs sued Café Sevilla of Riverside and its operators (hereinafter "Defendants"), arguing that the venue failed to provide adequate security and committed permit violations making it legally responsible for the repercussions of the shooting. Defendants moved for summary judgment and or summary adjudication (hereinafter "Motion") on the causes of action for negligence per se and ultrahazardous activity, which the Court ultimately granted and affirmed on appeal. The ruling in Defendants' favor in Carmichael highlights key limitations in holding businesses accountable for third-party violence, which is discussed further herein.

A federal judge in Arizona has dismissed a data breach class action, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim despite multiple attempts to amend their complaint. The Wood Smith Henning & Berman defense team comprised of partners Chris Seusing, John Darminio, and senior associate Sean Patel, successfully defended the client in this multi-faceted and complex case. The decision was not only a critical victory for the client, but also serves as important precedent, reinforcing that courts can and will strike class allegations at the pleading stage, an action they have historically been reluctant to take.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman obtained a decisive victory for a large financial institution in a data breach class action, leading to the voluntary dismissal of the case in Nebraska State Court. The lawsuit, which alleged violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), was withdrawn after the WSHB team, consisting of partner Chris Seusing and senior associate Sean Patel, demonstrated that the named plaintiff was not an adequate class representative.

The case of MK v. Auburnfly, LLC raises complex questions about the enforceability of parental indemnification agreements in Michigan. These agreements, often presented as prerequisites for participation in recreational activities, have significant implications for public policy and the rights of minors. At the center of the dispute is whether such agreements are consistent with Michigan public policy, particularly when a parent is required to indemnify a recreational business for injuries sustained by their child due to the business's alleged negligence.

In a highly anticipated decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court in L.L. et al. v. Newell Brands, Inc. et al. (SC2105), held that Connecticut state law does not recognize a parent's claim for loss of filial consortium when a minor child suffers severe injuries due to a third party's alleged wrongdoing. The decision arose from a certified question submitted by the United Sates District Court for the District of Connecticut in a case where the plaintiff sought damages under the Connecticut Product Liability Act for injuries sustained by their child.

When the State condemns private property pursuant to eminent domain, it must pay the property’s owner “just compensation,”¹ and if the “property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel,” the State must include severance damages in the “just compensation”² owed. Until recently, it was unclear whether the State had to pay severance damages if “the property sought to be condemned” was a nonpossessory property right in the land being condemned, such as an easement,³ rather than physical real property. However, in January, the Arizona Supreme Court clarified the issue in State of Arizona, et al. v. Foothills Reserve Master Owners Association, Inc.,⁴ holding the State must pay severance damages when it condemns appurtenant easements and certain other nonpossessory property rights.⁵

WSHB successfully secured a summary judgment in favor of its client in a high-stakes premises liability case in Florida. The plaintiff alleged that an optical illusion of a handrail on a sloped landscaped area caused a fall, resulting in over $400,000 in medical expenses and lasting physical limitations. Despite a $2.5 million demand from the plaintiff, WSHB's partners Ryan Schoeb and Zachary Williams, along with senior associate Kyle Woodford, prevailed by crafting a compelling legal argument that convinced the court to dismiss the case entirely.

The Washington Supreme Court recently addressed an important issue of first impression in the case of Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC, No.102566-1 (January 23, 2025). The case considered whether employers can prohibit low wage employees from working second jobs under a non-compete agreement. Central to the dispute was the proper interpretation of RCW 49.62.070, which memorializes the Washington legislature's commitment to promoting workplace mobility and protecting workers from overly restrictive non-compete agreements. The law recognizes that many individuals rely on multiple jobs to make ends meet. The legislative policy behind the law emphasizes that employers should not wield excessive control over an employee's ability to accept additional work. This decision marks a significant development in Washington employment law, affirming that employee protections against unreasonable restrictions will be enforced by the courts.

In a significant decision on personal injury damages, the California Court of Appeal, upheld a jury's award for future lost earnings and non-economic damages while reinforcing strict limitations on the recovery of past medical expenses. The case, David Yaffee v. Joseph Skeen, et al. (Filed 11/25/2024, C097746 and C097988), involved a dispute over the reasonable value of medical services, with the court holding that evidence suggesting a higher valuation than what was accepted by the hospital as full payment was improperly admitted. While the court affirmed substantial damages for the plaintiff's future economic and non-economic losses, it reversed the trial court's admission of excessive past medical expenses claims, underscoring the continuing impact of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, on California personal injury litigation.

WSHB is celebrating a significant legal victory after partner Vanessa Herzog and associate Taylor Stewart successfully secured a motion for summary judgment in favor of the client, a well-known gym. The victory resulted in the dismissal of all claims including negligence, premises liability, and gross negligence.