Experience Archive

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.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to share a hard-fought victory for the defense, with senior counsel Megan Michaud successfully arguing a motion for summary judgment in a complex premises liability case. The outcome is particularly noteworthy given the challenges of prevailing on summary judgment in negligence cases, especially given the serious nature of the plaintiff's alleged injuries.

In Elmi v. Related Mgmt., No. G062788 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2025), the California Court of Appeal clarified the scope of Code of Civil Procedure §998 regarding post-judgment costs and attorney fees. The case arose after the plaintiff, Cesar Elmi, rejected a 998 settlement offer from Related Management Company, LP (Related). The case proceeded to trial and was ultimately resolved for less than Related's offer. Under §998(c)(1), Elmi's award of pre-judgment costs and fees was limited to those incurred before Related's settlement offer. The trial court upheld this limitation, concluding that the offer exceeded the final case resolution amount.

In the recent decision of Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Mgmt., No. H050639 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024) the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the family of Mark Stokes, who died following an assault in the Levi's Stadium parking lot. The court concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the stadium's management and security companies’ alleged negligence was a substantial factor in failing to prevent the sudden and unforeseen attack. Plaintiffs argued that additional security measures could have either removed the assailant from the premises before the incident occurred or deterred the attack altogether. However, the court determined that these assertions were speculative and lacked substantial evidence to prove that the defendants' alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries resulting from a third-party assault.

In a high-stakes case, Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 252, review denied (Dec. 11, 2024), the court explored the boundaries of rideshare liability. The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Uber, concluding that the company was not responsible for the actions of a driver who struck a pedestrian while his Uber app was offline. The plaintiff argued that, despite the driver's offline status, he could have been positioning himself to take advantage of surge pricing by heading to a higher demand area – potentially blurring the line between personal and professional driving. However, both the trial and appellate courts found this theory too speculative, with undisputed evidence supporting that the driver was not acting for Uber at the time of the accident.

In a high-stakes personal injury case involving multiple alleged defendants and complex discovery battles, the legal team at Wood Smith Henning & Berman, led by partner Keith Smith, secured a decisive resolution in favor of the client on the footsteps of the courthouse just prior to the commencement of trial. The defense successfully dismantled the plaintiff's claim resolving the original $1.5 million claim to a settlement of only $50,000, and less than a previously issued 998 offer to compromise in the case.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman proudly announce another trial victory achieved by partner Ryan Schoeb and senior associate Olivia Rosenthal, who successfully defended a local construction company in a negligence suit, culminating in an involuntary dismissal during a bench trial

Wood Smith Henning & Berman announces a significant victory in a case involving a fraudulent accident at a work site. Senior associate, Megan McDonough, successfully secured a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice after uncovering critical evidence that revealed false claims made by the plaintiff about an alleged workplace accident.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a significant victory in a highly contentious lead paint action. Partner Bolam Kim and senior associate Lauren Davies successfully defeated the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and prevailed on a cross motion to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants.

New Jersey Senate Bill 1475, titled the "Consumer Legal Funding Act," seeks to regulate the practice of consumer legal funding within the state. Consumer legal funding involves non-recourse transactions where companies provide funds to individuals with pending legal claims in exchange for a contingent right to a portion of any potential settlement or judgment.