Complex Tort & Casualty Defense
Williams v. Transdev Services, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 717 (Md. App. Aug. 21, 2025) (jury verdict for defendant affirmed; supplemental expert opinion disclosed shortly before trial was properly admitted because timing of disclosure was the result of plaintiff’s dilatory conduct in discovery).

De La Paz v. Reggie’s Pallets Co., et al., unpublished, 2023 IL App (1st) 221093-U (no duty to maintain a semi-trailer in a condition with which it is safe to collide) (reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Nov. 14, 2023).

Cothran, et al. v. Durham School Services, L.P., et al., 666 S.W.3d 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022) (as a matter of first impression in Tennessee, elementary school teachers and staff cannot state negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims resulting from injury to school students because the teacher/staff-student relationship is not sufficiently close so as to be characterized as familial).

Archie v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., unpublished, 2021 WL 4130082 (9th Cir. 2021) (insufficient expert evidence of proximate cause linking concussions incurred playing youth tackle football with decedents’ CTE diagnoses; reported on by Law360, Sept. 13, 2021).

Kocher v. Durham School Services, L.P. (In re A.K.), 969 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2020) (school bus company liability to injured student who never boarded bus; reported on by Law360, Aug. 13, 2020).

Perez v. K&B Transportation, Inc., 967 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2020) (exclusion of plaintiffs’ experts on Daubertgrounds; reported on by Law360, July 24, 2020).

Kramer v. Szczepaniak, et al., 123 N.E.3d 431, (Ill. App. 2018) (proximate cause; reported on by Law360, Dec. 20, 2018, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 14, 2019).

M.S. by Covington v. Hamilton County Department of Education, et al., 756 Fed. Appx. 510 (6th Cir. 2018) (as a matter of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, a private school bus company that transports public school children is not a state actor for purposes of section 1983; reported on byLaw360, Nov. 2, 2018, and Business Insurance, Nov. 2, 2018).

Neuhengen v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., et al., 109 N.E.3d 832 (Ill. App. 2018) (question of first impression re: effect of employer’s admission of respondeat superior liability on direct negligence claims against employer; reported on by Law360, June 28, 2018 and January 10, 2019, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, June 29, 2018 and Sept. 26, 2018).

Higgins v. United Center Joint Venture, unpublished, 2017 IL App (1st) 160828-U (Ill. App. 2017) (negligence exception to immunity granted by the Illinois Hockey Facility Liability Act).

Lutkauskas v. Ricker, 28 N.E.3d 727 (Ill. 2015) (elements of civil claim re: violation of Illinois School Code).

Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, 955 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2011) (question of first impression re: damages available to parents alleging wrongful birth).

Doe v. University of Chicago, et al., 963 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. App. 2011) (question of first impression re: civil liability under the Illinois Gender Violence Act; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Dec. 23, 2011).

Green v. Rogers, 895 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. App. 2008), reversed, 917 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. 2009) (question of first impression re: defamation per se;appellate decision reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,Nov. 10, 2008).

Theatre Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Dalgliesh, 765 A.2d 986 (D.C. 2001) (question of first impression re: violation of Americans with Disabilities Act as evidence of negligence).

Casualty Defense/Workplace Injury
Hirmas v. Amazon.com, Inc., unpublished, 2023 Wash. App. LEXIS 2206 (Wash. Crt. App. Nov. 27, 2023) (no duty to warn driver of gap between his delivery truck and the loading dock at an Amazon distribution facility caused by the height differential between the two because the gap was an open and obvious condition).

David Saxe Productions, LLC, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 888 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (secured reversal of NLRB decision finding that theatrical production company unlawfully discharged dancer in retaliation for her participation in concerted protected activity; reported on by Law360, Mar. 21, 2017, Jan. 18, 2018, May 7, 2018, and Wolters Kluwer Employment Law Daily, May 4, 2018).

Wilfong v. L.J. Dodd Construction Co., 930 N.E.2d 511 (Ill. App. 2010) (question of first impression re: assumption of risk by talking on cell phone while walking).

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.,869 N.Y.S. 2d 366 (N.Y. 2008) (question of first impression re: validity of  partial contractual indemnification provisions between general contractor and subcontractor; reported on by New York Law Journal, Jan. 8, 2009, and DRI For The Defense, June 2009).

Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc., 652 S.E.2d 660 (N.C. App. 2007) (question of first impression re: mold exposure).

Professional Liability Defense
Longhi v. Lewit, et al., 187 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. 2020) (medical malpractice; reported on by Law360, Oct. 15, 2020).

Foster v. Cigna Healthspring, et al., unpublished, 2019 IL App (1st) 190627-U (Ill. App. 2019) (nursing home).

Saud v. Gardner, unpublished, 2019 IL App (1st) 180866-U (Ill. App. 2019) (absolute immunity of court-appointed experts).

Feliciano v. St. Vincent de Paul Residence, 29 N.Y.S. 3d 795 (N.Y. App. 2016) (nursing home).

Lorraine v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 6 N.Y.S.3d 194 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Angus v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 4 N.Y.S.3d 412 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Varano v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 2 N.Y.S.3d 379 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Salmanzadeh v. Bosley Medical Group, et al.,unpublished, 2015 WL 1249671 (Cal. App. 2015) (medical malpractice).

Matter of Small Smiles Litigation, 971 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. App. 2013) (dental malpractice-fraud).

Kroner v. Deer & Stone, unpublished, 2011 WL 10068663 (Ill. App. 2011) (legal malpractice).

Soscia v. Soscia, 829 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. App. 2006) (legal malpractice).

Ke v. Hsu & Associates, 752 N.Y.S.2d 42 (N.Y. App. 2002)(engineering malpractice).

COVID-19
Johnson v. Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc., 66 F.4th 1110 (8th Cir. 2023) (summary judgment on plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims affirmed where plaintiff did not put on evidence of discrimination but argued instead that his experience as a guest of the defendant hotel in June 2020 was so at variance with the treatment expected at a premium hotel that it could only be explained by discrimination; proper comparator was “the treatment expected of premium hotels during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic” and plaintiff’s experience was not so at variance with that; reported on by Law360, May 3, 2023).

Kowalczyk v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., et al., unpublished, 2021 IL App (1st) 210206-U (Ill. App. 2017) (petition for leave to appeal order denying motion to dismiss or transfer for forum non conveniens granted where trial court denied motion on the ground that use of remote technologies implemented to handle litigation during COVID-19 pandemic renders all forums convenient).

Estate of Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC, et al., 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (amicus brief in support of nursing home defendants’ position that state law negligence claims seeking damages for decedents’ deaths from COVID-19 are preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act; reported on by Law360, Oct. 20, 2021).

Cannabis
Washington v. Barr, 141 S. Ct. 555 (2020) (amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari re: Drug Enforcement Administration medical cannabis scheduling; reported on by Law 360, Sept. 14, 2020 and Oct. 13, 2020).

Medponics Illinois LLC v. Illinois Department of Agriculture, 2021 IL 125443 (Ill. 2021) (administrative review of cannabis cultivation center permit award; reported on by Law360, March 11, 2021 and May 21, 2021).

Product Liability
Huseth v. Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Association, et al., unpublished, 2024 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 210 (Minn. Ct. App. March 11, 2024) (plaintiff’s causation experts properly excluded for lack of foundational reliability).

Genaw v. Garage Equipment Supply Co., 856 Fed. Appx. 23 (6th Cir. 2021) (product liability / sufficiency of the pleadings; reported on by Law360, April 15, 2021).

Estabrook v. Mazak Corp., 140 N.E.3d 830 (Ind. 2020) (statute of repose under Indiana Products Liability Act).  

Baugh v. Cuprum, S.A. de C.V.,845 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2017) (proximate cause; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 17, 2017).

Dickie v. Cannondale Corp., 905 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. App. 2009) (scope of stream of commerce test for asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a product liability action; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Mar. 13, 2009, and Illinois State Bar Ass’n. E-Clips, Mar. 18, 2009).

Sadigh v. Stoughton Trailers, LLC, et al., unpublished, 984 N.E.2d 210 (table) (Ill. App. 2009) (duty).

Saia v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 851 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. App. 2006) (scope of stream of commerce test for asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a product liability action).

Civil Procedure
Greco v. Syracuse ASC, LLC, 193 N.Y.S.3d 511 (N.Y. App. 2023) (question of first impression re: establishing injury-in-fact element of standing in data breach class action litigation).

Brinker of Baltimore v. Smith, unpublished, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 15 (Md. App. 2021) (remittitur; reported on by Law360, Jan. 7, 2021).

Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., 143 N.E.3d 213 (Ill. App. 2019) (secured frivolous appeal sanctions against serial pro se plaintiff prohibiting further litigation absent leave of court).

R.D. v. Shohola, Inc.,769 Fed. Appx 73 (3d Cir. 2019) (evidentiary standard which must be met to depose opposing counsel’s private investigator about potential witness intimidation over a work product objection). 

Johnson v. Nash, et al.,126 N.E.3d 584 (Ill. App. 2019) (forum non conveniens, seeking transfer from Cook County to Kane County; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 3, 2019).

Williams by Williams v. Leonard, 96 N.E.3d 503 (Ill. App. 2017) (question of first impression re: Illinois substitution of judge statute; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 3, 2018).

Humbert v. Megabus USA, LLC, unpublished, 2017 IL App (1st) 153165-U (Ill. App. 2017) (forum non conveniens; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 17, 2017).

Owens v. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 3, et al., 78 N.E.3d 470 (Ill. App. 2017) (statute of limitations).

Brinkman v. General Dynamics Corp., 671 Fed. Appx. 872 (4th Cir. 2016) (federal officer removal statute).

Varano v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 3 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y. App. 2015) (secured reversal of order granting plaintiff a new trial following defense verdict where new trial was ordered on the basis of alleged jury stalking by a third-party trial spectator; reported on by Law360, Feb. 9, 2015, Above the Law, Feb. 9, 2015, and ABA Journal, Feb. 11, 2015).

ACE European Group, Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 621 Fed. Appx. 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (question of first impression re: appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1); reported by Law360, Aug. 13, 2015).

W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Insurance Company – Puerto Rico, 748 F. 3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014) (question of first impression re: appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1); reported on by Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage, July 12, 2013; reported on by Law360, May 13, 2021).

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., et al., 741 F. 3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (question of first impression re: pleading diversity of citizenship).

Matter of Small Smiles Litigation, 979 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. App. 2014) (discovery).

Hergan v. Pawlan Law, LLC, et al., unpublished, 2013 IL App (1st) 113812-U (Ill. App. 2013) (claim splitting).

Ghilarducci v. Forrest, unpublished, 2013 IL App (1st) 100596-U (Ill. App. 2013) (res judicata).

McMillian v. Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers,567 F. 3d 839 (7th Cir. 2009) (amount in controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction).

Peniston v. Epstein, 780 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. App. 2004) (vacatur of default judgment).

Commercial Litigation
Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., 863 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2017) (appealability and construction of arbitrator’s finding that dispute is not arbitrable).

Kadiyala v. Bank of America, 630 Fed. Appx. 633 (7th Cir. 2016) (breach of contract).

Adgooroo, LLC v. Hechtman, unpublished, 2016 IL App (1st) 142531-U (Ill. App. 2016) (settlement consideration; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 29, 2016).

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Angel Juvenile Products, et al., 640 Fed. Appx. 389 (5th Cir. 2016) (breach of contract).

Liability Insurance Coverage
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lin, 97 F.4th 500 (7th Cir. 2024) (amount of workers’ compensation payments to injured party properly subtracted from underinsured motorist policy limit; reported on by Law360, April 1, 2024, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 16, 2024).

AKN Holdings, LLC v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., unpublished, 2022 WL 2610243 (9th Cir. 2022) (coverage precluded for fraud action arising from real estate sale on the basis of the policy’s contract exclusion; reported on by Law360, Nov. 1, 2021, Jan. 12, 2022, June 17, 2022, and July 12, 2022).

Bartkowiak v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 39 N.E.3d 176 (Ill. App. 2015) (collectability of primary policy as trigger of excess coverage; reported on by Law360, Aug. 17, 2015).

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 555 Fed. Appx. 474 (6th Cir. 2014) (policy definition of “covered auto you own”).

Admiral Insurance Co. v. PIF High Yield Fund II, 450 Fed. Appx. 682 (9th Cir. 2011) (rescission).

Preferred Mutual Ins. Co. v. New York Fire-Shield, 880 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. App. 2009) (late notice).

Hytko v. Hennessy, 879 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. App. 2009) (question of first impression re: application of doctrine of unclean hands to common law indemnification claims between carriers).

Norris v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 857 N.E.2d 859 (Ill. App. 2006) (question of first impression re: liability of employer’s commercial trucking insurer to employee’s estate for both uninsured motorist and workers compensation benefits).

Essex Ins. Co. v. Young, 796 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. App. 2005) (assault and battery exclusion).

Venture Encoding Service, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 107 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. 2003) (printers liability coverage).

Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. Terk Technologies Corp., 763 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. App. 2003) (advertising injury).

Centereach Realty, LLC v. Essex Ins. Co., 759 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. App. 2003) (timely disclaimer of coverage).

Directors & Officers Liability Insurance Coverage
Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., 2024 WL 3024658 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024) (declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the insured corporation’s shareholder agreements excluded from coverage by D&O policy’s contract exclusion as an action arising out of the insured’s contractual obligations under its shareholder agreements; reported on by Law360, June 22, 2023, December 5, 2023, March 22, 2024, March 27, 2024, June 18, 2024).

Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. v. Rogas, unpublished, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28172 (9th Cir. 2023) (preclusion of coverage by warranty letter exclusion; reported on by Law360, Sept. 19, 2022, May 24, 2023, July 17, 2023, Oct. 5, 2023, and Oct. 25, 2023).

Adelman v. United States Specialty Ins. Co., et al., unpublished, 2022 WL 17883601 (9th Cir. 2022) (D&O policy’s WARN Act exclusion barred coverage where the only breach of fiduciary duty alleged was that the directors and officers caused their company to violate the WARN Act; reported on by Law360, May 18, 2022 and Aug. 5, 2022).

Ascent Media Group, LLC v. Those Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s, unpublished, 2008 WL 2600728 (Cal. App. 2008) (“assured v. assured” exclusion; reported on by D&O Liability Litigation News, July 2008).

Property Insurance Coverage
Board of Educ. of Tp. High School Dist. No. 211 v. TIG Ins. Co., 881 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. App. 2007) (notice of loss; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Dec. 27, 2007).

Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Ins. Co., 810 N.Y.S.2d 430 (N.Y. App. 2006) (notice of loss).

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 797 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. App. 2005) (business interruption, September 11 loss).

D.R. Watson Holdings, LLC v. Caliber One Indem. Co., 789 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. App. 2005) (wear-and-tear and faulty/defective maintenance exclusions).

AZ Land Trust v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., unpublished, 904 N.E.2d 1245 (table) (Ill. App. 2005) (effect of policy renewal on inflation guard provision).

LDLJ Associates, et al. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., unpublished, No. A-1649-03T1 (N.J. App. 2005) (sinkhole exclusion).

Chatham Corp. v. Dann Ins., 812 N.E.2d 483 (Ill. App. 2004) (question of first impression re: extra expense coverage).

Wal-Mart Stores v. U.S.F. &G., 784 N.Y.S.2d 25 (N.Y. App. 2004) (suit limitation provision).

Armstrong v. Caliber One Ind. Co., 772 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. App. 2004) (rescission, standard mortgagee clause).

Tacoma Electric Supply, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Appx. 567 (9th Cir. 2002) (earth movement exclusion).

Fairlawn Industries, Ltd. v. Gerling America Ins. Co., 775 A.2d 744 (N.J. App. 2001) (insured premises description; reported on by New Jersey Lawyer, July 16, 2001).

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Country Wide Truck Svcs., Inc., 696 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. App. 1999) (employee theft exclusion).

Life Insurance
American General Life Ins. Co. v. Shenkman, 455 Fed. Appx. 263 (3rd Cir. 2011) (suicide exclusion).

Pro Bono
People v. Daniels, unpublished, 2021 IL App (2d) 190011-U (conviction of criminal trespass to a residence reversed and new trial ordered due to ineffective assistance of counsel).

U.S. v. Billings, 546 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008) (appeal of sentencing following guilty plea).

Representative Matters

Complex Tort & Casualty Defense
Williams v. Transdev Services, 2025 Md. App. LEXIS 717 (Md. App. Aug. 21, 2025) (jury verdict for defendant affirmed; supplemental expert opinion disclosed shortly before trial was properly admitted because timing of disclosure was the result of plaintiff’s dilatory conduct in discovery).

De La Paz v. Reggie’s Pallets Co., et al., unpublished, 2023 IL App (1st) 221093-U (no duty to maintain a semi-trailer in a condition with which it is safe to collide) (reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Nov. 14, 2023).

Cothran, et al. v. Durham School Services, L.P., et al., 666 S.W.3d 369 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2022) (as a matter of first impression in Tennessee, elementary school teachers and staff cannot state negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims resulting from injury to school students because the teacher/staff-student relationship is not sufficiently close so as to be characterized as familial).

Archie v. Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc., unpublished, 2021 WL 4130082 (9th Cir. 2021) (insufficient expert evidence of proximate cause linking concussions incurred playing youth tackle football with decedents’ CTE diagnoses; reported on by Law360, Sept. 13, 2021).

Kocher v. Durham School Services, L.P. (In re A.K.), 969 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2020) (school bus company liability to injured student who never boarded bus; reported on by Law360, Aug. 13, 2020).

Perez v. K&B Transportation, Inc., 967 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2020) (exclusion of plaintiffs’ experts on Daubertgrounds; reported on by Law360, July 24, 2020).

Kramer v. Szczepaniak, et al., 123 N.E.3d 431, (Ill. App. 2018) (proximate cause; reported on by Law360, Dec. 20, 2018, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 14, 2019).

M.S. by Covington v. Hamilton County Department of Education, et al., 756 Fed. Appx. 510 (6th Cir. 2018) (as a matter of first impression in the Sixth Circuit, a private school bus company that transports public school children is not a state actor for purposes of section 1983; reported on byLaw360, Nov. 2, 2018, and Business Insurance, Nov. 2, 2018).

Neuhengen v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., et al., 109 N.E.3d 832 (Ill. App. 2018) (question of first impression re: effect of employer’s admission of respondeat superior liability on direct negligence claims against employer; reported on by Law360, June 28, 2018 and January 10, 2019, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, June 29, 2018 and Sept. 26, 2018).

Higgins v. United Center Joint Venture, unpublished, 2017 IL App (1st) 160828-U (Ill. App. 2017) (negligence exception to immunity granted by the Illinois Hockey Facility Liability Act).

Lutkauskas v. Ricker, 28 N.E.3d 727 (Ill. 2015) (elements of civil claim re: violation of Illinois School Code).

Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, 955 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2011) (question of first impression re: damages available to parents alleging wrongful birth).

Doe v. University of Chicago, et al., 963 N.E.2d 327 (Ill. App. 2011) (question of first impression re: civil liability under the Illinois Gender Violence Act; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Dec. 23, 2011).

Green v. Rogers, 895 N.E.2d 647 (Ill. App. 2008), reversed, 917 N.E.2d 450 (Ill. 2009) (question of first impression re: defamation per se;appellate decision reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,Nov. 10, 2008).

Theatre Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Dalgliesh, 765 A.2d 986 (D.C. 2001) (question of first impression re: violation of Americans with Disabilities Act as evidence of negligence).

Casualty Defense/Workplace Injury
Hirmas v. Amazon.com, Inc., unpublished, 2023 Wash. App. LEXIS 2206 (Wash. Crt. App. Nov. 27, 2023) (no duty to warn driver of gap between his delivery truck and the loading dock at an Amazon distribution facility caused by the height differential between the two because the gap was an open and obvious condition).

David Saxe Productions, LLC, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, 888 F.3d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (secured reversal of NLRB decision finding that theatrical production company unlawfully discharged dancer in retaliation for her participation in concerted protected activity; reported on by Law360, Mar. 21, 2017, Jan. 18, 2018, May 7, 2018, and Wolters Kluwer Employment Law Daily, May 4, 2018).

Wilfong v. L.J. Dodd Construction Co., 930 N.E.2d 511 (Ill. App. 2010) (question of first impression re: assumption of risk by talking on cell phone while walking).

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.,869 N.Y.S. 2d 366 (N.Y. 2008) (question of first impression re: validity of  partial contractual indemnification provisions between general contractor and subcontractor; reported on by New York Law Journal, Jan. 8, 2009, and DRI For The Defense, June 2009).

Cameron v. Merisel Properties, Inc., 652 S.E.2d 660 (N.C. App. 2007) (question of first impression re: mold exposure).

Professional Liability Defense
Longhi v. Lewit, et al., 187 A.D.3d 873 (N.Y. App. 2020) (medical malpractice; reported on by Law360, Oct. 15, 2020).

Foster v. Cigna Healthspring, et al., unpublished, 2019 IL App (1st) 190627-U (Ill. App. 2019) (nursing home).

Saud v. Gardner, unpublished, 2019 IL App (1st) 180866-U (Ill. App. 2019) (absolute immunity of court-appointed experts).

Feliciano v. St. Vincent de Paul Residence, 29 N.Y.S. 3d 795 (N.Y. App. 2016) (nursing home).

Lorraine v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 6 N.Y.S.3d 194 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Angus v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 4 N.Y.S.3d 412 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Varano v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 2 N.Y.S.3d 379 (N.Y. App. 2015) (dental malpractice-damages).

Salmanzadeh v. Bosley Medical Group, et al.,unpublished, 2015 WL 1249671 (Cal. App. 2015) (medical malpractice).

Matter of Small Smiles Litigation, 971 N.Y.S.2d 784 (N.Y. App. 2013) (dental malpractice-fraud).

Kroner v. Deer & Stone, unpublished, 2011 WL 10068663 (Ill. App. 2011) (legal malpractice).

Soscia v. Soscia, 829 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. App. 2006) (legal malpractice).

Ke v. Hsu & Associates, 752 N.Y.S.2d 42 (N.Y. App. 2002)(engineering malpractice).

COVID-19
Johnson v. Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc., 66 F.4th 1110 (8th Cir. 2023) (summary judgment on plaintiff’s racial discrimination claims affirmed where plaintiff did not put on evidence of discrimination but argued instead that his experience as a guest of the defendant hotel in June 2020 was so at variance with the treatment expected at a premium hotel that it could only be explained by discrimination; proper comparator was “the treatment expected of premium hotels during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic” and plaintiff’s experience was not so at variance with that; reported on by Law360, May 3, 2023).

Kowalczyk v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., et al., unpublished, 2021 IL App (1st) 210206-U (Ill. App. 2017) (petition for leave to appeal order denying motion to dismiss or transfer for forum non conveniens granted where trial court denied motion on the ground that use of remote technologies implemented to handle litigation during COVID-19 pandemic renders all forums convenient).

Estate of Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC, et al., 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (amicus brief in support of nursing home defendants’ position that state law negligence claims seeking damages for decedents’ deaths from COVID-19 are preempted by the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act; reported on by Law360, Oct. 20, 2021).

Cannabis
Washington v. Barr, 141 S. Ct. 555 (2020) (amicus brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari re: Drug Enforcement Administration medical cannabis scheduling; reported on by Law 360, Sept. 14, 2020 and Oct. 13, 2020).

Medponics Illinois LLC v. Illinois Department of Agriculture, 2021 IL 125443 (Ill. 2021) (administrative review of cannabis cultivation center permit award; reported on by Law360, March 11, 2021 and May 21, 2021).

Product Liability
Huseth v. Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Association, et al., unpublished, 2024 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 210 (Minn. Ct. App. March 11, 2024) (plaintiff’s causation experts properly excluded for lack of foundational reliability).

Genaw v. Garage Equipment Supply Co., 856 Fed. Appx. 23 (6th Cir. 2021) (product liability / sufficiency of the pleadings; reported on by Law360, April 15, 2021).

Estabrook v. Mazak Corp., 140 N.E.3d 830 (Ind. 2020) (statute of repose under Indiana Products Liability Act).  

Baugh v. Cuprum, S.A. de C.V.,845 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2017) (proximate cause; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 17, 2017).

Dickie v. Cannondale Corp., 905 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. App. 2009) (scope of stream of commerce test for asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a product liability action; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Mar. 13, 2009, and Illinois State Bar Ass’n. E-Clips, Mar. 18, 2009).

Sadigh v. Stoughton Trailers, LLC, et al., unpublished, 984 N.E.2d 210 (table) (Ill. App. 2009) (duty).

Saia v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 851 N.E.2d 693 (Ill. App. 2006) (scope of stream of commerce test for asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a product liability action).

Civil Procedure
Greco v. Syracuse ASC, LLC, 193 N.Y.S.3d 511 (N.Y. App. 2023) (question of first impression re: establishing injury-in-fact element of standing in data breach class action litigation).

Brinker of Baltimore v. Smith, unpublished, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 15 (Md. App. 2021) (remittitur; reported on by Law360, Jan. 7, 2021).

Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hosp., 143 N.E.3d 213 (Ill. App. 2019) (secured frivolous appeal sanctions against serial pro se plaintiff prohibiting further litigation absent leave of court).

R.D. v. Shohola, Inc.,769 Fed. Appx 73 (3d Cir. 2019) (evidentiary standard which must be met to depose opposing counsel’s private investigator about potential witness intimidation over a work product objection). 

Johnson v. Nash, et al.,126 N.E.3d 584 (Ill. App. 2019) (forum non conveniens, seeking transfer from Cook County to Kane County; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 3, 2019).

Williams by Williams v. Leonard, 96 N.E.3d 503 (Ill. App. 2017) (question of first impression re: Illinois substitution of judge statute; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 3, 2018).

Humbert v. Megabus USA, LLC, unpublished, 2017 IL App (1st) 153165-U (Ill. App. 2017) (forum non conveniens; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 17, 2017).

Owens v. VHS Acquisition Subsidiary Number 3, et al., 78 N.E.3d 470 (Ill. App. 2017) (statute of limitations).

Brinkman v. General Dynamics Corp., 671 Fed. Appx. 872 (4th Cir. 2016) (federal officer removal statute).

Varano v. FORBA Holdings, LLC, et al., 3 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y. App. 2015) (secured reversal of order granting plaintiff a new trial following defense verdict where new trial was ordered on the basis of alleged jury stalking by a third-party trial spectator; reported on by Law360, Feb. 9, 2015, Above the Law, Feb. 9, 2015, and ABA Journal, Feb. 11, 2015).

ACE European Group, Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 621 Fed. Appx. 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (question of first impression re: appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1); reported by Law360, Aug. 13, 2015).

W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Insurance Company – Puerto Rico, 748 F. 3d 377 (1st Cir. 2014) (question of first impression re: appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1); reported on by Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage, July 12, 2013; reported on by Law360, May 13, 2021).

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., et al., 741 F. 3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (question of first impression re: pleading diversity of citizenship).

Matter of Small Smiles Litigation, 979 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. App. 2014) (discovery).

Hergan v. Pawlan Law, LLC, et al., unpublished, 2013 IL App (1st) 113812-U (Ill. App. 2013) (claim splitting).

Ghilarducci v. Forrest, unpublished, 2013 IL App (1st) 100596-U (Ill. App. 2013) (res judicata).

McMillian v. Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers,567 F. 3d 839 (7th Cir. 2009) (amount in controversy requirement of diversity jurisdiction).

Peniston v. Epstein, 780 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. App. 2004) (vacatur of default judgment).

Commercial Litigation
Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., 863 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2017) (appealability and construction of arbitrator’s finding that dispute is not arbitrable).

Kadiyala v. Bank of America, 630 Fed. Appx. 633 (7th Cir. 2016) (breach of contract).

Adgooroo, LLC v. Hechtman, unpublished, 2016 IL App (1st) 142531-U (Ill. App. 2016) (settlement consideration; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 29, 2016).

Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Angel Juvenile Products, et al., 640 Fed. Appx. 389 (5th Cir. 2016) (breach of contract).

Liability Insurance Coverage
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lin, 97 F.4th 500 (7th Cir. 2024) (amount of workers’ compensation payments to injured party properly subtracted from underinsured motorist policy limit; reported on by Law360, April 1, 2024, and Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 16, 2024).

AKN Holdings, LLC v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., unpublished, 2022 WL 2610243 (9th Cir. 2022) (coverage precluded for fraud action arising from real estate sale on the basis of the policy’s contract exclusion; reported on by Law360, Nov. 1, 2021, Jan. 12, 2022, June 17, 2022, and July 12, 2022).

Bartkowiak v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 39 N.E.3d 176 (Ill. App. 2015) (collectability of primary policy as trigger of excess coverage; reported on by Law360, Aug. 17, 2015).

Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 555 Fed. Appx. 474 (6th Cir. 2014) (policy definition of “covered auto you own”).

Admiral Insurance Co. v. PIF High Yield Fund II, 450 Fed. Appx. 682 (9th Cir. 2011) (rescission).

Preferred Mutual Ins. Co. v. New York Fire-Shield, 880 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. App. 2009) (late notice).

Hytko v. Hennessy, 879 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. App. 2009) (question of first impression re: application of doctrine of unclean hands to common law indemnification claims between carriers).

Norris v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 857 N.E.2d 859 (Ill. App. 2006) (question of first impression re: liability of employer’s commercial trucking insurer to employee’s estate for both uninsured motorist and workers compensation benefits).

Essex Ins. Co. v. Young, 796 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. App. 2005) (assault and battery exclusion).

Venture Encoding Service, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 107 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. 2003) (printers liability coverage).

Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. Terk Technologies Corp., 763 N.Y.S.2d 56 (N.Y. App. 2003) (advertising injury).

Centereach Realty, LLC v. Essex Ins. Co., 759 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. App. 2003) (timely disclaimer of coverage).

Directors & Officers Liability Insurance Coverage
Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., 2024 WL 3024658 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024) (declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the insured corporation’s shareholder agreements excluded from coverage by D&O policy’s contract exclusion as an action arising out of the insured’s contractual obligations under its shareholder agreements; reported on by Law360, June 22, 2023, December 5, 2023, March 22, 2024, March 27, 2024, June 18, 2024).

Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. v. Rogas, unpublished, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28172 (9th Cir. 2023) (preclusion of coverage by warranty letter exclusion; reported on by Law360, Sept. 19, 2022, May 24, 2023, July 17, 2023, Oct. 5, 2023, and Oct. 25, 2023).

Adelman v. United States Specialty Ins. Co., et al., unpublished, 2022 WL 17883601 (9th Cir. 2022) (D&O policy’s WARN Act exclusion barred coverage where the only breach of fiduciary duty alleged was that the directors and officers caused their company to violate the WARN Act; reported on by Law360, May 18, 2022 and Aug. 5, 2022).

Ascent Media Group, LLC v. Those Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s, unpublished, 2008 WL 2600728 (Cal. App. 2008) (“assured v. assured” exclusion; reported on by D&O Liability Litigation News, July 2008).

Property Insurance Coverage
Board of Educ. of Tp. High School Dist. No. 211 v. TIG Ins. Co., 881 N.E.2d 957 (Ill. App. 2007) (notice of loss; reported on by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Dec. 27, 2007).

Ocean Partners, LLC v. North River Ins. Co., 810 N.Y.S.2d 430 (N.Y. App. 2006) (notice of loss).

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 797 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y. App. 2005) (business interruption, September 11 loss).

D.R. Watson Holdings, LLC v. Caliber One Indem. Co., 789 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. App. 2005) (wear-and-tear and faulty/defective maintenance exclusions).

AZ Land Trust v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., unpublished, 904 N.E.2d 1245 (table) (Ill. App. 2005) (effect of policy renewal on inflation guard provision).

LDLJ Associates, et al. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., unpublished, No. A-1649-03T1 (N.J. App. 2005) (sinkhole exclusion).

Chatham Corp. v. Dann Ins., 812 N.E.2d 483 (Ill. App. 2004) (question of first impression re: extra expense coverage).

Wal-Mart Stores v. U.S.F. &G., 784 N.Y.S.2d 25 (N.Y. App. 2004) (suit limitation provision).

Armstrong v. Caliber One Ind. Co., 772 N.Y.S.2d 828 (N.Y. App. 2004) (rescission, standard mortgagee clause).

Tacoma Electric Supply, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 40 Fed. Appx. 567 (9th Cir. 2002) (earth movement exclusion).

Fairlawn Industries, Ltd. v. Gerling America Ins. Co., 775 A.2d 744 (N.J. App. 2001) (insured premises description; reported on by New Jersey Lawyer, July 16, 2001).

National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Country Wide Truck Svcs., Inc., 696 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. App. 1999) (employee theft exclusion).

Life Insurance
American General Life Ins. Co. v. Shenkman, 455 Fed. Appx. 263 (3rd Cir. 2011) (suicide exclusion).

Pro Bono
People v. Daniels, unpublished, 2021 IL App (2d) 190011-U (conviction of criminal trespass to a residence reversed and new trial ordered due to ineffective assistance of counsel).

U.S. v. Billings, 546 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008) (appeal of sentencing following guilty plea).

Representative Matters

Insights

The Minefield of Appellate Practice: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(D) and Making Your Record in the Absence of a Court Reporter

March 5, 2026

Author: Melissa A. Murphy-Petros

Insights

Illinois Appellate Court Requires Setoff of High-Low Settlement Payments Even After a Defense Verdict

February 4, 2026

Author: Melissa A. Murphy-Petros

Insights

The Minefield of Appellate Practice

May 28, 2025

Author: Melissa Murphy-Petros

Insights

Challenges to the Constitutionality of the Punitive Damages Amendments to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and Probate Act

August 24, 2023

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest Update: Fourth District Calls on Illinois Supreme Court to Overturn the Enrolled Bill Doctrine

July 25, 2023

Attorney Articles

Law360 Publishes Murphy-Petros Article on Prejudgment Interest in Tort Actions

June 27, 2023 - Law360 | Expert Analysis

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest Update: Appellate Court Finds Prejudgment Interest Statute Constitutional

June 15, 2023

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest Update: Motion Challenges in the Circuit Court of Cook County

August 30, 2022

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest Update: Prejudgment Interest Statute Held Unconstitutional

June 1, 2022

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest – June Update

June 7, 2021

Insights

Illinois Prejudgment Interest Legislation – UPDATE

March 29, 2021

Insights

Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Amending Judgment Interest Statute to Impose Prejudgment Interest in Tort Actions

January 15, 2021

Insights

Cannabis and Appellate Law Practices Collaborate to Prepare Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court in Challenge to Marijuana’s Schedule I Status

September 14, 2020

Insights

The Minefield of Appellate Procedure: The Necessity of Post-Trial Motions Following Jury Trials in Illinois

April 7, 2020

Insights

Learned Intermediary Doctrine Protects Pharmacy from Liability for Failure to Warn of Prescription Drug Side Effects

March 28, 2019

Representative Matters

Murphy-Petros, Smith & Miller Secure Appellate Win Based on Plaintiff’s Own Dilatory Conduct in Discovery

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL), Brigitte Smith (Partner-Baltimore, MD), and Zachary Miller (Associate-Baltimore, MD) represented a provider of public transportation services in Baltimore City to those with physical disabilities. The legally blind plaintiff, a regular rider, filed suit after he suffered a severe fracture when he fell on ice while walking from his front door to our client’s bus. The plaintiff claimed that our driver was negligent in not assisting him while he walked to the bus as the driver was required to do, but admitted that he did not wait for the driver to help him on the day of his injury. The case was tried to a defense verdict by Brigitte and Zak and Melissa handled the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the judgment on the jury’s verdict. The only issue plaintiff raised on appeal was the trial court’s order denying his motion to strike a supplemental medical expert opinion that we disclosed approximately 10 days before trial. It was plaintiff’s position that this testimony at trial was the basis for the jury’s defense verdict and it should not have been allowed, so he was entitled to a new trial. In the end, the court agreed with our argument that plaintiff’s own dilatory conduct in discovery led to the late timing of our supplemental disclosure in the first place, so the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike. 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros, Brigitte J. Smith and Zachary Miller

Murphy-Petros and Thurston Obtain Affirmance on Contract Exclusion

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) and James Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL) obtained affirmance in Paraco Gas Corp. v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., No. 23-1069-cv. U.S. App., Second Circuit (June 17, 2024) for the firm’s specialty insurance client, Ironshore. The plaintiff, a closely held family corporation that distributes propane fuel and equipment, sought coverage under its D&O policy for a shareholder dispute involving share transfers. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that its declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the shareholder agreement's stock transfer provisions is excluded from coverage under the policy's contract exclusion as an action arising out of the insured's contractual obligations under the shareholder agreement. This litigation was covered by Law360 extensively and reported on five times, most recently after the Second Circuit's decision was handed down. 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and James K. Thurston

Thurston, Murphy-Petros and Meer Obtain Affirmance in D&O Coverage Case

Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Partner-Chicago, IL) and Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY) prevailed on behalf of the firm’s insurance client in a case involving an insured closely held family corporation that sought coverage under its D&O policy for a declaratory judgment action seeking enforcement of the stock transfer provisions in its shareholders’ agreements. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the policy’s contract exclusion precluded coverage because the declaratory judgment action – although not an action for breach of contract – arose out of the insured’s contractual obligations under the shareholder agreements. Jim and Jonathan secured the dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; Jim and Melissa handled the Second Circuit briefing, and Melissa presented oral argument.  Jim and Melissa are now 8-1 before the U.S. Court of Appeals, where they have handled matters in the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits.

The appeal was covered by Law360 in their June 22, 2023, December 5, 2023, March 22, 2024, March 27, 2024, June 17, 2024 articles.

James K. Thurston, Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and Jonathan E. Meer

Loringer, Murphy-Petros and Del Gatto Secure Appellate Order that Solidifies Appropriate Rules of Disclosure for Expert Opinions

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

Mirabile, Murphy-Petros and Das Obtain Favorable Ruling in VPPA Class Action

Constantina Mirabile (Of Counsel-West Palm Beach, FL), Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) and Anjali Das (Partner-Chicago, IL) represented an educational technology company that provides subscribers with access to online educational courses in a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff, a subscriber, allegedly viewed online course content offered by our client, and filed a putative class action on behalf of herself and all other subscribers for violations of the VPPA. The plaintiff alleged that Meta Pixel (a snippet of JavaScript code that tracks visitor activity on a website) was installed on our client’s website, which resulted in the disclosure of her personal information to Facebook, including the content she viewed, without her consent. Wilson Elser filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, noting that the plaintiff (like all subscribers) was required to accept defendant’s Terms of Use, which included a mandatory binding arbitration provision. Moreover, the Terms of Use explicitly stated that all parties waived the right to participate in a class action or representative proceeding with respect to any claim. The court promptly granted Wilson Elser’s motion pursuant to the Terms of Service agreement. The ruling underscores the importance of arbitration and class action waiver language in Terms of Use agreements.

NOTE: The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1998, sought to preserve personal privacy with respect to the rental, purchase or delivery of video tapes or similar audio visual materials. Plaintiffs have sought to resuscitate the statute by bringing VPPA claims into the 21st century based on the premise that organizations that offer prerecorded, online audio visual content are “video tape service providers” within the meaning of the statute, the draw being VPPA class actions include statutory damages of up to $2,500 per violation.
 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and Anjali C. Das

Murphy-Petros, Thurston, Tranen and Butterfield Score Team Victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago, IL) Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago, IL), Daniel Tranen (Partner-St. Louis, MO), and Chad Butterfield (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) convinced the Nevada District Court that coverage was not available under a $5 million D&O policy for the putative claims by a bankruptcy litigation trustee against a former officer (Kay). Kay allegedly breached his fiduciary duties to an insured entity when he failed to uncover the criminal fraud of its former CEO (Rogas). The Court followed Wilson Elser’s arguments that Kay’s breaches were “arising from” Rogas’s prior fraud and, therefore, fell within the purview of the exclusionary language of a warranty letter executed by Rogas, wherein he represented that “no insured” (including Rogas) had knowledge or information of any act or error that might give rise to a claim. Following briefing and oral argument by Melissa, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that despite two non-imputation clauses in the policy and allegations of wrongdoing by Rogas after the warranty letter, “the broad language excluding any claim ‘arising from’ pre-execution knowledge” was sufficient to bar any coverage to Kay under the policy. This three-office victory evidences the successful collaboration between Wilson Elser’s coverage, litigation and appellate attorneys on an economical basis without having to use additional local counsel.

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros, James K. Thurston and Daniel E. Tranen

Ninth Circuit Victory in Coverage Case Involving the El Chapo Drug Cartel

Melissa Murphy-Petros (Of Counsel-Chicago), Jim Thurston (Partner-Chicago) and Paul White (Partner-Los Angeles) prevailed in a coverage action before the Ninth Circuit. The underlying action involved the insured’s sale of a scientific manufacturing facility in Mexico without telling the buyer that the facility had been taken over by the El Chapo drug cartel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of our Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis of the policy’s contract exclusion, finding that the underlying action – which stated claims for fraud – was an action “based on, arising from, or in any way related to an actual or alleged breach of contract.” This decision is important because the underlying action sought damages only for tort claims, and there were no breach of contract claims. Further, certain of the alleged wrongful acts occurred prior to the formation of any contract, yet both courts held the exclusion still had application. Although there was no claim for indemnity, the insured sought $5 million in defense costs.

This appeal has been reported on four times by Law360:

9th Circ. Won't Revive PE Firm's 'El Chapo' Insurance Dispute

Firm Faces Skeptical 9th Circ. In 'El Chapo' Insurance Dispute

Insurer Urges 9th Circ. To Toss Appeal In 'El Chapo' Dispute

PE Firm Tells 9th Circ. It's Owed Defense In Fraud Suit
 

Melissa A. Murphy-Petros and James K. Thurston

Drug equipment

Firm Highlights

Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
News
Super Lawyers Names Three to 2026 Virginia Rising Stars List
Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Events
ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management
Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.
Read more
Events
Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims
Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
News
Super Lawyers Names Three to 2026 Virginia Rising Stars List
Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Events
ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management
Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.
Read more
Events
Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims
Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
News
Super Lawyers Names Three to 2026 Virginia Rising Stars List
Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Client Wins
Brinker and Heydari Secure Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case
Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.
Read more
Events
Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA
Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.
These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site