Experience Archive

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 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.