Jennafer G. Groswith

Michael Manfredi (Partner-Atlanta, GA) and Jennafer Groswith (Partner-Dallas, TX) secured summary judgment for SWD Urethane, an Arizona-based spray polyurethane foam manufacturer, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff alleged that SWD manufactured defective and toxic spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation applied in her home during a November 2020 renovation. Upon returning, she claimed to experience a range of symptoms –including headaches, breathing difficulties, chest tightness, and rashes – which she attributed to SPF exposure. The plaintiff brought claims against SWD for strict product liability (design defect), negligent product liability (design defect), failure to warn, negligence per se, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

Mickey and Jennafer moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including the plaintiff's failure to respond to SWD's requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted, and the absence of competent evidence connecting SWD to the SPF installed in the plaintiff's home. In opposing the motion, the plaintiff relied on unverified air quality expert reports and a late-disclosed medical causation affidavit from her treating physician to establish the causal link between the SPF and her injuries. Wilson Elser successfully moved to strike or exclude these submissions, arguing that the air quality reports were unsworn and, therefore, did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements for consideration on summary judgment, and that the treating physician’s causation testimony constituted undisclosed expert opinion offered after the close of discovery. The court agreed and excluded all three expert reports.

With the expert evidence excluded, the plaintiff was left with only a single invoice between SWD and the co-defendant installer as purported proof that SWD manufactured the SPF at issue. Mickey and Jennafer argued that the invoice was insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, as it did not establish that the products listed were SPF, that they were used in the plaintiff's home, or that SWD was the manufacturer rather than merely a seller. The court agreed that no reasonable jury could conclude from the invoice alone that SWD manufactured the SPF applied in the plaintiff's home, granted summary judgment on all claims and dismissed SWD from the case with prejudice, and awarded its costs.

Jennafer Groswith (Partner-Dallas) and Stephen Cord (Associate-Dallas) secured a summary judgment win for their roofing client in a multiparty commercial construction defect case. The Plaintiffs alleged that their surgery center and medical buildings were unusable as a result of a myriad of construction defects which included the TPO membrane roof. Plaintiffs claimed the roof on both buildings needed to be replaced and the General Contractor claimed over $1M in damages was owed by their roofing client. They moved for summary judgment based on the complete lack of evidence that their client violated the standard of care or that the roof was causing any damage. At the last minute, opposing counsel filed a motion to continue the hearing to try to buy more time to drum up evidence. The Court correctly denied opposing counsel’s motion to continue and granted their No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.