Nicholas D. Freeman

Nicholas D. Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL), J. Peter Greco (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL), and Donna Krusbe (Of Counsel-West Palm Beach, FL) obtained a full dismissal with prejudice in a federal product liability case arising from a fatal vehicle crash. The firm represented a component parts manufacturer accused of designing and supplying a defective trailer axle alleged to have contributed to the incident. The plaintiff alleged that a defective trailer axle required the decedent to stop on the highway, and that resulted in the decedent being struck by another motorist.  Nick, Peter, and Donna successfully argued that there was an unrelated motor vehicle collision that was the true proximate cause of the collision with the decedent, and it was unforeseeable that an alleged axle failure could result in a death under those circumstances. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed and dismissed all claims with prejudice. 

Nicholas D. Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Dale S. Dobuler (Of Counsel-Orlando, FL) obtained summary judgment in favor of our client insurance company in a declaratory action on the lack of coverage for two severe underlying bodily injury claims and lawsuits brought by two different pedestrians who were injured during a traffic accident involving the client’s insured. While we defended the underlying claims and suits, it was the client’s position that the operative policy did not provide responsive liability coverage for the accident. After filing suit, Nick and Dale quickly moved for summary judgment on the lack of coverage under the policy for the two claims and prevailed in full on that issue. After the successful summary judgment ruling, they sought a final default judgment with respect to certain defendants who had been defaulted in the coverage action. During the subsequent hearing on that issue, Nick and Dale successfully defended against a motion to vacate the default brought by one of the defaulted defendants, and then were successful in obtaining final default judgment on the lack of coverage for our client and the remaining defaulted defendants, bringing the matter to a close and allowing the client to withdraw its defense of the underlying bodily injury suits.

Nicholas D. Freeman (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Teresa C. Taglianetti (Associate-West Palm Beach, FL) obtained summary judgment in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (Underwriters). The lawsuit involved an insurance coverage claim pending in Florida state court that alleged Hurricane Ian caused damages to the plaintiff’s property. In response, Underwriters denied coverage based on the insurance policy’s endorsement, which excluded any coverage for damages to the roof. The insured filed suit to challenge the denial, and Nick and Teresa filed a motion for summary judgment that argued the policy clearly excluded all alleged damages. The court agreed with our arguments and granted summary judgment for Underwriters.  

Orlando partners John Benford and Nick Freeman obtained a favorable verdict for less than 2 percent of the amount demanded by the plaintiff after a two-week trial in the Southern District of Florida. Wilson Elser was retained to defend a national distributor of firearm parts in a lawsuit brought by a gun manufacturer that asserted a total of 12 claims based on false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty and various defamation counts. The court awarded our client partial summary judgment on 9 of the 12 claims one week prior to trial. The case then proceeded to a 10-day jury trial on two of the breach of warranty claims and one defamation claim. The plaintiff demanded $40 million prior to trial. During the course of the trial, John obtained numerous favorable rulings in limine from the court excluding key portions of the plaintiff’s evidence. During closings, the plaintiff requested an award of $8.5 million from the jury. The jury found for our client on both breach of warranty claims, and for the plaintiff on the defamation claim, awarding plaintiff $500,000 in damages, which represented less than 10 percent of the amount the plaintiff requested from the jury at the conclusion of the trial.