Experience Archive

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a significant victory for the defense, celebrating a unanimous verdict in favor of a respected, world-renowned neurosurgeon in a high-profile medical malpractice case. Philadelphia partner, Andy Kessler, prevailed on behalf of the client after a hard fought eight-day trial.

The managing partner of Wood Smith Henning & Berman's Seattle office, Tim Repass, has secured back-to-back success in yet another high-profile jury trial. Repass successfully defended a housing authority in an important premises case in which an elderly tenant claimed $2.2 million in damages after a fall on an icy surface. Ultimately, the jury awarded less than one-fifth of the amount claimed, agreeing with our analysis.

In a case that serves as a critical reminder of the power and limits of absolute privilege in litigation, the Illinois appellate court recently upheld the dismissal of defamation claims in a complex legal dispute over the administration of New Market Tax Credit programs. When accusations fly and reputations hang in the balance, the line between protected legal maneuvering and actionable defamation can be razor thin. This case illustrates the scope of absolute privilege, which can shield certain statements made in the course of litigation and explores when inflammatory statements and claims cross into illegal territory. By examining the consequences of reckless assertions and potential untruths in the course of legal proceedings, this ruling places the spotlight on the importance of absolute privilege as a potential defense and clarifies what is required to secure relief for defamatory litigation-fueled allegations.

Florida was once a hotbed for punitive damage awards, earning it a spot on the ATLA judicial hellhole report for several years. While tort reform has curbed many runaway verdicts, Florida remains a source of litigation concern. In the case of Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a decision granting punitive damages against a medical provider. Orlando Health, Inc. v. Mohan, 2024 WL 2484435 (Fla. 5th DCA May 24, 2024).The claim arose from a medical malpractice case arising out of a wrong site surgery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to allow punitive damages for gross negligence but reversed the ruling regarding negligent credentialing, as the medical provider could not be held responsible on that front since its agent had been exonerated.

In a lesson on the importance of timely claims, the Appellant Division, Second Department in New York dismissed a homeowner's breach of contract suit over alleged construction defects in her basement remodel. The case, Hillaire v. Jose A. Torres, ___ N.Y.S.3d ___, 2024 WL 3281628 (2d Dep’t 2024), involved claims that the defendant botched a flooring installation back in 2015. Since the plaintiff filed their lawsuit nearly seven years after the work was completed- well past New York's six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract- the complaint was ruled too little, too late. The court's decision also made it clear that pandemic-era extensions to filing deadlines, while generous, did not save this claim.

In a complex intersection of civil and criminal law, the Texas Supreme Court recently addressed an interesting Fifth Amendment application to civil discovery proceedings. The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who sustained injuries when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, Taylor Brock Peters. Following the accident, Peters faced not only civil liability but also criminal charges for two counts of intoxication assault with a motor vehicle. During discovery, the trial court ordered Peters to disclose the establishments that served him alcohol on the night of the accident. Peters refused, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Significant amendments to Florida's rules of civil procedure are on the horizon, taking effect on January 1, 2025. The amendments will impact a variety of areas, ranging from pretrial discovery and motion practice to judicial case management, and trial continuances. The changes issued by the Florida Supreme Court are designed to streamline civil case administration, better ensure timely judicial decisions, and generally improve efficiency in civil litigation. Notably, the rules introduce new standards for complex cases, deadlines for discovery, and changes to trial procedures. Attorneys and legal professionals practicing in Florida should familiarize themselves with these developments to navigate the new procedural landscape effectively. Although the amendments are intended to bring improvement, many of these changes are likely to be marred by early growing pains for practicing attorneys as well as the judges who are already under extreme pressure associated with court dockets already saturated from the influx of new case filings that were spurred by recent tort reform.

As evidenced by recent events as well as trends over the last decade, the risks of political turmoil and civil unrest are drastically increasing. These risks range from terrorist acts to protests and civil commotion to riots to looting and vandalism. Strikes, riots, and civil commotion (SRCC) threats, as they are characterized in insurance policies, not only pose a significant danger to the public but are also estimated to cost businesses millions of dollars every year. Although insurance carriers have traditionally included SRCC coverage as part of a standard policy, the increased frequency and severity of these risks have made this practice impracticable.

In the noteworthy case of Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 382 So. 3d 62 (La. 2024), the Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed a key issue surrounding the limits of an architect's and contract administrator's contractual obligations in construction projects. The case stemmed from a serious injury sustained by a subcontractor's employee during a demolition project. The plaintiff filed a negligence claim against Verges Rome Architects ("VRA"), the architect and project's contract administrator, alleging that VRA owed a duty to ensure workplace safety. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, determined that no such duty existed under the terms of the construction contract or Louisiana law regarding the interpretation of contracts.

In a significant legal win, the Dallas office of Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) secured an exceedingly rare appellate victory through a restricted appeal, a seldom-used legal tool with strict limitations. The successful appeal overturned a default judgment, offering new hope for clients who believed all legal avenues had been exhausted.

Recent investigations into construction injury lawsuits in New York City have exposed alarming trends that raise serious questions about the integrity of the legal system. An unsettling pattern has emerged: a high concentration of injury claims from residents of specific apartment buildings and neighborhoods, all linked to a small number of law firms. This phenomenon coupled with powerful RICO actions brought by Tradesman and the ripple effects not only suggests the possibility of widespread fraud but also threatens the socio-economic stability of New York's legal and insurance landscape.

WSHB is proud to announce that the New Jersey office secured a significant victory in a property management case involving a severe injury claim. Under the supervision of partner Jill Mucerino, and led by senior associate Alison McClave, the case was successfully resolved in favor of the client, the owner and manager of an apartment building, after a successful motion for summary judgment in Middlesex County.

On June 3, 2024, Governor Jared Polis signed Colorado House Bill 24-1472 into law, marking a pivotal change in the state's legal framework around damages. This legislation significantly raises the limits on noneconomic damages, wrongful death claims, and medical malpractice awards, while also allowing siblings to bring wrongful death actions in certain cases. These updates carry substantial consequences for businesses and insurers operating in Colorado. This article explores the practical outcomes of these changes and how they may impact litigation and risk management.

Illinois recently passed SB2979, amending the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This amendment narrows the scope of liability for businesses that collect biometric data, addressing concerns raised by the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004. In its opinion, the court had suggested legislative review of BIPA's potential for excessive damages, and SB2979 now aims to provide that clarity.

In a significant victory for the medical community, trial partner Ryan Deane of WSHB has achieved a unanimous defense verdict in a two-week medical malpractice trial that concluded on October 15, 2024. The jury deliberated for only 35 minutes before determining that the physician involved was not negligent, underscoring the strength of the defense presented.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) is proud to announce a significant victory in a high-stakes jury trial in King County, Washington, securing a decisive win for our esteemed clients—a leading general contractor and a real estate developer. Led by the exceptional legal acumen of seasoned trial attorney Tim Repass, WSHB skillfully dismantled a construction site injury and premises liability claim, delivering a powerful defense.

In a significant victory for Wood Smith Henning & Berman, partner Christopher Seusing, senior associate Sean Patel, and associate Kyle Woodford successfully obtained a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. The case, which involved a class action against a major entertainment corporation, alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) due to the defendant's alleged sharing of users' video viewing histories with Facebook.

In a recent, pivotal decision, Stone v. Alameda Health System, the Supreme Court of California held that public employers are not subject to civil penalties pursuant to California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) and that the California meal and rest break laws at issue in the case do not apply to public agencies. The Court further clarified that Labor Code section 220(b)’s definition of “municipal corporation” includes all public employers.

In a notable decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals recently declined to allow a defendant to pursue a comparative fault defense in a habitability lawsuit. By way of summary, Ms. Thomas, the Plaintiff, was a tenant in a duplex owned by Dillon Family Limited Partnership, the Defendant. The refrigerator in Plaintiff’s apartment began to leak water leaving puddles that extended into her adjacent living room. Thomas v. Dillon Family Limited Partnership II, 319 Or. App. 429, 420 (2022). Plaintiff indicated that she was having to mop puddles up at least twice a day. Id. 

In a significant shift, The California Supreme Court in Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., has aligned state law with a recent development in federal precedent, eliminating the arbitration-specific prejudice requirement when determining waiver of the right to enforce arbitration agreements. Historically, both California and federal courts required a showing of prejudice to establish waiver in the context of arbitration, a standard rooted in a policy favoring arbitration over litigation. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 596 U.S. 411, which clarified that arbitration agreements should be treated like any other contract, the California Supreme Court has now repealed its prejudice requirement. This decision underscores the principle that arbitration agreements are placed on equal footing with other contracts, ensuring that waiver determinations are based solely on general contract law principles.

In Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas LLC (2024), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed two critical issues concerning claims for professional negligence in Nevada. First, it clarified the standard for distinguishing professional negligence claims (which requires a supporting affidavit from a medical expert under NRS 41A.071) from ordinary negligence claims. This clarification effectively overruled the common knowledge exception previously established in Estate of Curtis v. South Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC, 136 Nev. 350, 466 P.3d 1263 (2020). Second, the court confirmed that pursuant to Baxter v. Dignity Health, 131 Nev. 759, 357 P.3d 927 (2015), NRS 41A.071, the affidavit requirement was satisfied if it was incorporated by reference in the complaint and executed before the complaint was filed.

In the ongoing matter of North River Insurance Company v. James River Insurance Company, the Ninth Circuit recently turned to the Nevada Supreme Court to resolve an important legal question that could determine the outcome of a recurring dispute between insurers. The case arises from a wrongful death lawsuit following a murder at a Las Vegas apartment complex. The settlement exceeded the primary insurer’s policy limits, but it remained within the combined limits of both the primary and excess insurers. The excess insurer, after covering the remainder of the settlement, filed suit against the primary insurer in California federal court, claiming a breach of its duty to settle as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The primary insurer moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that Nevada does not recognize equitable subrogation as between a primary insurer and excess insurer, and the district court (Central District of California) granted the motion. The excess insurer appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who in turn, sought clarity on whether Nevada law permits equitable subrogation between insurers in such cases. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court pursuant to Nev. R. App. P. 5(a), stating that the answer to the certified question is essential to the outcome of the case:

Under Nevada law, can an excess insurer state a claim for equitable subrogation against a primary insurer where the underlying lawsuit settled within the combined policy limits of the insurers?

The Court of Appeal just issued a groundbreaking case in Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740 (review denied August 21, 2024), which provides welcome relief to the defense community with respect to its ability to establish the reasonable market value of past and future medical treatment claimed by personal injury plaintiffs. The case is important for at least two reasons: (1) it bolsters the import of Cuevas v. Contra Costa County (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 163, which held, in a medical malpractice case, that future Medi-Cal and other insurance benefits are admissible for determining the reasonable value of medical services; and (2) it provides a rebuttal case to language in Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266, which rejected the notion that future Medicare/insurance benefits are admissible to establish the reasonable value of medical services.

WSHB is proud to announce momentous victories achieved by partners Richie Singer and Kimberly Jones and senior associate Erica Pope. Richie Singer successfully argued a complex Motion for Summary Judgment concerning a coverage issue on a forced place policy. This win was followed by an unsuccessful appeal filed by the Plaintiff thanks to the strong briefing and arguments by partner Kimberly Jones. This outcome not only underscores the firm's legal prowess but also exemplifies its commitment to providing exceptional representation for clients.

In a decisive legal victory, the Alabama office of Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully defended an insurance agent against negligence and wantonness claims in a high-stakes trial in Perry County, Alabama. The plaintiffs alleged that the agent failed to procure adequate insurance and mishandled the processing of a liability claim, which led to collection actions being taken against them. The trial unfolded after a year of contentious litigation, culminating in a directed verdict, after the plaintiffs rested their case.

The Kings County Superior Court has granted summary judgment in favor of a leading equipment manufacturer for the meat packing industry, represented by Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB), in a high stakes products liability case. The important ruling is a significant victory in a multi-party lawsuit involving a tragic incident in which the plaintiff lost a limb while sanitizing equipment at a packing plant. Plaintiff is seeking a minimum of $26 million against all parties in the product's distribution chain and the operators of the plant.

In an important ruling for commercial property owners, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Alejandra Padilla v. Young II An, (A-43-22) addressed the owners' obligations regarding the maintenance of public sidewalks and answered the question: Do owners of vacant commercial lots have a duty to maintain adjacent public sidewalks in reasonably good condition?

In a ruling that has significant implications for the construction industry, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Lessard v. R.C. Havens & Sons, Inc., recently clarified the scope of coverage under commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies concerning construction defects. For the first time, the court determined that construction defects, standing alone, do not qualify as "property damage" under these policies. This decision that could reshape the landscape of liability for contractors and homeowners alike, potentially altering how parties approach risk management, contract negotiations, and insurance underwriting. As the industry grapples with the ramifications of this ruling, stakeholders may need to reconsider their legal strategies and the allocation of responsibility in construction projects. This landmark decision not only shifts the understanding of what constitutes insurable damage, but also sets a precedent that could influence future legal interpretations and coverage disputes across the nation.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) is pleased to announce that a Santa Monica judge returned a favorable verdict for our client in a challenging business litigation case. Trial attorneys Andreea Custurea and Greg Amundson expertly navigated a multitude of claims brought forth by the plaintiffs, who alleged breaches of contract, fraud, and other serious offenses. WSHB successfully defended against claims exceeding $2 million with the court awarding the plaintiff less than $50,000. In addition, as the plaintiff failed to surpass the statutory offer to compromise and are now responsible for all expert fees and costs.

In a new arbitration-related ruling, a California court in the case of Cook v. University of Southern California, found that an arbitration agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate all claims, even those not arising from the employment relationship, for an infinite amount of time, was unconscionable and entirely unenforceable. The decision arose from a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged discrimination and harassment by her employer and two co-workers. Despite the defendants' collective motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by the plaintiff as a condition of employment, the court denied the motion, citing the purportedly pervasive unconscionability of the agreement. The defendants appealed the decision.

In a remarkable demonstration of legal acumen, Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully resolved a complex security negligence case through a strategic motion for summary judgment. This decisive victory, spearheaded by trial attorneys Lauren Kane and Frances O’Meara, exemplifies the effectiveness of well-crafted legal motions in bringing clarity and finality to challenging cases.

The "Transparency and Limitations on Foreign Third-Party Litigation Funding" recently went into effect on August 1, 2024. This legislation is designed to regulate the involvement of foreign and third-party entities in litigation funding to increase transparency and protect the integrity of the legal process. This article outlines some provisions and implications of the law which is comprised of Louisiana R.S. 9:3580.1 through R.S. 9:3580.7, and R.S. 9:3580.10 through 3580.12.

In a significant ruling underscoring the boundaries of liability in workplace injuries involving independent contractors, the California Court of Appeal recently addressed a case stemming from an accident at the San Francisco International Airport. In Bowen v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., A166793 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC17561849), the court found that the retained control exception to the Privette doctrine was not sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a significant legal victory led by partner Kate Adams, who successfully prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment concerning third-party coverage under a policy issued to a town in Connecticut. This landmark decision addressed critical aspects of CGL Coverage, Public Entity Management Liability Coverage, and Public Entity Employment Related Practices Coverage.

In a recent legal battle before the Connecticut Supreme Court, a plaintiff challenged her employer's handling of a hostile work environment claim after facing racially discriminatory statements from a coordinator in her department. O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al., highlights the complexities of defining supervisory roles and the implications for vicarious liability in discrimination cases.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to report yet another successful jury trial, this time led by trial lawyers Jade Tran and Vanessa Herzog. Together, Tran and Herzog successfully defended a national trucking company and its driver in a challenging jury trial in the San Bernardino Superior Court. This intricate case, which stemmed from a significant accident on the northbound I-15, culminated in the jury determining that the plaintiff driver bore 95% of the liability for the collision.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman has achieved a notable legal victory in Michigan in a complex automobile accident case. The case involved a vehicle rented by a leading delivery company from our client, which resulted in an accident with the plaintiff. Partner Michael Spinazzola showcased his expertise in the handling of this matter.

WSHB New York is celebrating yet another win in a complex case involving New York’s contentious Labor Law. This win underscores the firm's strategic ability in setting up cases for success through powerful law in motion practice.

In a decisive ruling, a Nevada court has granted Wood Smith Henning & Berman's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case stemming from a shooting incident at a rental property in Las Vegas. Led by Las Vegas Managing Partner, Janice Michaels, the WSHB team including Kyle Hoyt argued their way to victory on behalf of owners of a short-term rental. The case involved homeowners who utilized an online marketplace in order to rent their property to a third-party tenant, who subsequently hosted a party in violation of house rules, leading to a nearby shooting away from the home that injured the plaintiff.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a remarkable legal victory on behalf of a multi-million dollar construction client, securing the dismissal of complex data breach class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California (NDCA). The case, which consolidated multiple class action suits, involved the compromise of 24,000 employee files following a ransomware attack.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce a significant victory in a bench trial led by trial attorney Thomas Fama. The case, which had been pending for nearly five years due to pandemic-related delays and unreasonable demands by the plaintiff, concluded with a resounding judgment in favor of the defendant.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to share that partner Andy Kessler has secured a favorable award in a binding arbitration that had been pending since 2017 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

In a significant ruling, Texas Department of Insurance et al. v. Stonewater Roofing, Ltd., Co., 2024 WL 2869414 (June 7, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court upheld state regulations mandate licensing for public insurance adjusters and prohibit dual roles as both a contractor and adjuster. This decision came after Stonewater Roofing, a roofing contractor, challenged the constitutionality of these regulations, arguing they violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court's decision has critical implications for insurers and contractors, reinforcing the legal boundaries within which they must operate.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman, a leading defense litigation firm, is pleased to announce a resounding victory in a high-profile medical malpractice case. After an intense over month long jury trial, celebrated trial attorney, Ryan Deane, successfully secured a defense verdict on behalf of the client, a gynecological surgeon.

In a recent ruling, the Nevada Court of Appeals delivered an important decision in the case of Igtiben v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State of Nev., No. 86567-COA (Nev. App. Dec. 21, 2023) shedding light on the significance of medical records in medical malpractice claims. The case centered around a prisoner who passed away in a hospital after receiving medical treatment. This ruling has far-reaching implications for professionals involved in the defense of medical malpractice claims in Nevada, emphasizing the critical role of thorough medical record examination in triggering inquiry notice.

Product manufacturers and sellers faced with strict products liability claims often look to industry and government safety standards in formulating their defense. While most states permit this type of evidence, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Werner Co., 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023), has again reaffirmed Pennsylvania's stance that its Courts will not follow this trend. Thus, evidence of this nature will not be allowed to be introduced in strict products liability cases in the Commonwealth. In what many consider an outdated viewpoint, the Pennsylvania high court ruled that the introduction of this evidence would only confuse the issue for jurors. Practitioners defending products liability cases in Pennsylvania should apprise themselves of the details of this decision and plan their case strategies accordingly.

In CBRE v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Johnson, No. D083130 (June 4, 2024), the court determined that a written contract is not required to apply the Privette doctrine. The court found that the hirers delegated control over tenant improvements to the contractor before the litigant's injury occurred. Additionally, the court found that no exceptions to the Privette doctrine applied in this case.

WSHB, a leading litigation and trial law firm, is pleased to announce a significant win in a complex transportation case handled by the Michigan office. The litigation involved an unfortunate incident where a vehicle rented by a well-known national overnight delivery service was hit by the Plaintiff, resulting in a series of legal claims.

In a case of first impression in Colorado, on May 23, 2024, the Court of Appeals has established a test for evaluating claims of actual discharge under state law. The case, Potts v. Gaia Children LLC, No. 23CA1008 (May 23, 2024), centers on a plaintiff who appealed the district court's dismissal of her wrongful discharge claim. The Colorado appellate court concluded the allegations could substantiate a finding of actual discharge and adopted a definition of "actual discharge" in line with federal court holdings.

In the case of Truck Ins. Exch. V. Kaiser Cement, Case No. 5273179, 2004 WL 3016941 (June 17, 2024), the Supreme Court of California examined when a first-level excess insurer's indemnity obligations attach in a situation involving continuous injury that potentially triggered multiple policy periods. It concluded that the language contained in the first-level excess policies was materially identical to that of the language in the higher-level policies. Based on this assessment, it concluded that the first-level excess policies are best interpreted as requiring only vertical exhaustion.