News Briefs
The Best Lawyers in America 2026 Includes 140 Wilson Elser Attorneys
August 21, 2025
Recently retained to act as lead trial counsel for several Wisconsin companies in toxic tort cases venued in Illinois and California.
Obtained a defense verdict in California state court asbestos case for a manufacturer.
Successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in Wisconsin state court on behalf of a manufacturer in a toxic tort case.
Argued and won an appeal before the California Court of Appeals on behalf of a school district regarding the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.
Recently retained to act as lead trial counsel for several Wisconsin companies in toxic tort cases venued in Illinois and California.
Obtained a defense verdict in California state court asbestos case for a manufacturer.
Successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in Wisconsin state court on behalf of a manufacturer in a toxic tort case.
Argued and won an appeal before the California Court of Appeals on behalf of a school district regarding the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.
Recently retained to act as lead trial counsel for several Wisconsin companies in toxic tort cases venued in Illinois and California.
Obtained a defense verdict in California state court asbestos case for a manufacturer.
Successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in Wisconsin state court on behalf of a manufacturer in a toxic tort case.
Argued and won an appeal before the California Court of Appeals on behalf of a school district regarding the adequacy of an environmental impact statement.
John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI) and Gavin Wardzala (Associate-Milwaukee, WI), after obtaining dismissal of a negligence action at the circuit court level last year, successfully defended their appraiser client before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The case involved negligence claims against the appraiser, who had testified in a prior divorce hearing in which the plaintiff was a party. The court held that the appraiser was entitled to the absolute testimonial privilege because his testimony was relevant to issues before the divorce court. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding that the appraiser was immune from civil liability and that the plaintiff’s claims were barred from proceeding. As a result of this successful defense raised at the earliest possible stage of the litigation, the client avoided the need for costly and time-consuming discovery and the retention of subject-matter experts.
John P. Loringer and Gavin L. Wardzala
Milwaukee partners John Loringer and David Frank, assisted by associate Sam Obscherning, secured summary judgment for an airline client and its insurer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiff, a passenger, claimed that an overhead panel fell and struck him in the chest, allegedly causing injuries that required multiple surgeries to repair an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The plaintiff asserted that the airline was negligent in maintaining the aircraft and sought to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to meet his burden of proof. On summary judgment the Wilson Elser team argued that the plaintiff could not establish either negligence or causation. The court agreed, emphasizing that the plaintiff had conducted minimal discovery, taken no depositions, and neglected to retain a liability expert. In the court’s view, aircraft maintenance is a technical matter requiring expert testimony and “Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence negligence… regardless of the applicable standard of care.” The court ruled that res ipsa “cannot excuse plaintiff’s lack of evidence here.” The court also rejected the plaintiff’s request for spoliation sanctions, finding no evidence of bad faith and noting that the plaintiff did not report the injury to the airline and did not seek to inspect the aircraft panel or move for a sanction in discovery. The court ultimately held that plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact on breach and granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice and removing the case from the trial calendar.
John P. Loringer, David A. Frank, II and Samuel P. Obscherning
Gavin Wardzala (Associate-Milwaukee) and John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee) secured dismissal in the Waukesha Circuit Court in a professional negligence suit brought against Wilson Elser’s clients, a real estate appraisal services company, and its appraiser/employee. The clients had previously conducted a valuation of marital real estate in the context of a divorce proceeding. The plaintiff in this matter argued that our client’s appraiser employee was negligent when he allegedly conducted a “reappraisal” of the residence while preparing to testify at trial. Gavin and John filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appraiser was a court-appointed expert entitled to quasi-judicial immunity; our clients were entitled to an absolute testimonial privilege from liability due to the plaintiff’s allegations that damages sustained were a direct result of the company employee’s testimony; and the doctrine of issue preclusion applied to the family court’s determination that the clients were court-appointed, rather than jointly-retained experts. The court concurred with Wilson Elser’s position, liberally construing the appointment order in favor of immunity to protect quasi-judicial officials like our clients from the chilling effect of retaliatory litigation, thereby extending quasi-judicial and testimonial immunity and dismissing the complaint.
Gavin L. Wardzala and John P. Loringer
John Loringer (Partner-Milwaukee, WI), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) and Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) successfully defended the dismissal of a Canadian manufacturer of farm equipment before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, a Minnesota dairy farmer, alleged that our client's product was the cause of a decrease in milk production over numerous years. The settlement demand throughout discovery was in excess of $3 million for the loss of production and untimely death of some of the cows. After having the case dismissed at the trial court by demonstrating the lack of foundational reliability with the plaintiff's expert witness theories regarding causation, the plaintiff appealed and the appellate court issued an order affirming dismissal by the trial court and securing a complete victory for the client. The result here solidifies appropriate rules of disclosure for expert opinions.
John P. Loringer, Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and Brian Del Gatto