Kathryn Anne Grace Partner

     

Contact

   

Kathryn Grace has a dedicated civil practice in complex litigation and is a co-chair of the firm’s national Aviation practice. She focuses on professional liability and general liability matters, primarily in aviation, transportation, product liability and insurance coverage. Kathryn also has experience in the areas of toxic tort and ERISA, and her recent trial experience includes developing defenses related to financial crimes imputed to the plaintiff.

Kathryn is widely recognized for her superior communications skills and ability to organize, strategize and continually assess the status of her cases to determine possible resolution opportunities. She makes it a priority to maintain constant contact with clients and carriers.

A world traveler, Kathryn has toured England, Wales, Scotland, the Czech Republic, Italy, France, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, New Zealand, Fiji, Kenya and the Seychelles. She frequently visits her native Ireland, and lived in Dubai for three years as a child. Kathryn studied in Dublin for a semester of college and in Sydney during law school. Her impressive itinerary is reflected in her perspective and sensitivity to other cultures.

Kathryn also takes part in pro bono and community outreach, including organizing charitable walks annually in the Washington, DC Metro area.

Areas of Focus

Aviation & Aerospace
Kathryn's excellent analytical skills and her ability to be decisive make her an intrinsic member of Wilson Elser's aviation team and helicopter defense team. Her location in the DC Metro area positions her to represent a variety of aviation interests, including military contractors, commercial airlines and general aviation entities. Recent examples include representation of a legacy airline in a serious injury case arising out of lightning strikes and one of the country's largest FBOs in a significant dispute with a regional airline.

General Liability & Professional Liability
Kathryn defends property owners and management companies in catastrophic matters. She also has represented various professionals in litigation, including accountants, appraisers, engineers and lawyers. Much of her litigation experience in these areas has involved indemnification claims, which have made Kathryn sensitive to the need for constant risk transfer assessment for her clients.

Insurance Coverage
Kathryn worked for an insurance company in 2012, where she gained substantial knowledge of the insurance business, which has led to her successful handling of insurance coverage and first-party litigation.

Trucking, Transportation & Cargo
Kathryn handles transportation matters for one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies and one of the world’s largest take-out restaurant chains, both of which she has defended at trial. She also represents other trucking and transportation companies in personal injury and wrongful death cases.

Representative Matters

Obtained dismissal of premises liability suit by responding to the complaint by filing a plea in bar based on the exclusivity provision of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing that the insureds met the definition of “statutory employer” under Va. Code § 65.2-307, thereby rendering the plaintiff’s suit barred.

Obtained a voluntary dismissal without any monetary consideration for a client involved in a fatal car accident that resulted in the death of the other vehicle’s driver and serious injuries to the passenger of that vehicle, the plaintiff. After interviewing numerous officers that responded to the scene and deposing an eyewitness to the incident, Wilson Elser attorneys convinced the plaintiff to dismiss the case without any monetary consideration

Obtained dismissal of a premises liability case where the plaintiff sought $500,000 for injuries sustained after she allegedly slipped and fell at a public retail establishment. Kathryn first moved to quash service on the defendants because the proof of service was facially defective in two ways: 1) it identified a wrong physical address for the defendant, and 2) it identified someone who was not an authorized designate accepted service. The plaintiff missed the statute of limitations by naming improper parties as defendants and failing to notify the correct defendants of institution of the suit in a timely manner, and then failed to re-attempt service within the mandated period permitted by statute. Kathryn successfully moved to dismiss the entire case with prejudice.

View All Publications