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

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

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

Denise Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) and Samuel Jones (Associate-Louisville, KY) successfully obtained an order compelling arbitration and staying the case in Boone County Circuit Court, Kentucky, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s home inspector client. The plaintiffs alleged personal injuries arising from exposure to mold in a residential property. In addition to suing our client, the plaintiffs brought claims against the realtor and other parties involved in the sale of the home, alleging they concealed the home’s condition. The home inspection contract contained several provisions favorable to our client, including an exclusion for mold inspections, a significant limitation of liability, and a mandatory arbitration agreement. The court concurred that the claims against the home inspector were subject to arbitration and stayed the litigation as to our client.

Dirk Muse (Partner-Seattle) and Carinne Bannan (Of Counsel-Seattle) obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, for Wilson Elser's client, a manufacturer of roofing and decking materials. In this asbestos case – recently transferred from one side of the state to the other – Dirk and Carinne argued dismissal was the only appropriate remedy, given the plaintiff's total lack of product identification evidence connecting the client to the alleged exposure. The plaintiff's counsel, who had ignored all informal requests for dismissal, then sought a continuance of the summary judgment motion to conduct further discovery. Dirk and Carinne convinced the court that a continuance was unwarranted, as the plaintiff had failed to pursue discovery in the year since filing the case. Accordingly,  the court dismissed the claims with prejudice for lack of evidence.

Chicago partners Anthony Goldner and Charles Prochaska IV obtained a not guilty verdict following a two-week bench trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of an uninsured landlord in a mold personal injury case brought by a 47-year-old foreclosure and bankruptcy defense attorney. The complaint, originally filed in 2021 was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff prior to the original trial date, was refiled in 2025. The plaintiff alleged there had been at least six leaks lasting up to an hour each time from the ceiling vent in his bathroom, which were not promptly addressed. The plaintiff retained two air quality experts who found minimal to moderate amounts of mold in his apartment, but he complained of chronic headaches, insomnia, cognitive deficiencies, and inflammation in all areas of his body that continue to the present day with little improvement. The claims were supported by several treating physicians who testified that the exposures to mold led to the development of chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS), a permanent condition that could lead to a lower life expectancy. Plaintiff further alleged that the CIRS significantly reduced his income as a practicing attorney and his retained economist expert forecast a past and future loss of income up to $5 million. With a demand of $3.75 million to settle, talks at a mediation and before the first trial date were not successful. At trial, Anthony and Chuck mounted a full defense and lengthy cross-examination of the plaintiff that successfully challenged the plaintiff’s claims. The court distinguished the relative paucity of expertise of the plaintiff’s air quality inspectors and treating physicians with the industrial hygiene and medical experts retained by the defense. The fundamental weakness of the plaintiff’s medical causation case was fatal to his case.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) and Vanessa Natividad (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) prevailed on a motion for summary adjudication in Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles, on behalf of a stone countertop distributor in Orange County. The plaintiff, a career stone cutter, was diagnosed with silicosis. He sued our client, among dozens of defendants, alleging the client supplied him with natural and engineered stone slabs that he subsequently worked on or around. He further alleged that the slabs released respirable crystalline silica that he inhaled, causing him to develop silicosis. Of the causes of action against our client, the plaintiff alleged that the client fraudulently concealed the dangers of the products. Joshua and Vanessa successfully brought a motion for summary adjudication on the cause of action for fraudulent concealment, resolving that claim in our client’s favor.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) and Vanessa Natividad (Of Counsel-Los Angeles/San Francisco) secured summary adjudication in Los Angeles Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s client, a stone countertop retailer in Los Angeles County. The plaintiff, a career stone cutter, was diagnosed with silicosis. He sued our client, among dozens of defendants, alleging that the client supplied him with natural and engineered stone slabs that he subsequently worked on or around, and that these slabs released respirable crystalline silica, which he inhaled, causing his silicosis. As to the causes of action specifically brought against our client, the plaintiff alleged that the client failed to warn him of the danger, fraudulently concealed the dangers of the products, and sought punitive damages against the client. Joshua and Vanessa brought a motion for summary adjudication regarding the allegations of failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and the prayer for punitive damages. Wilson Elser’s motion for summary adjudication on all three issues was granted.

Joshua Praw (Of Counsel-San Francisco) and Kelsie Longerbeam (Associate-San Francisco) prevailed on their motion for summary judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s client, a natural and artificial stone product retailer. In this toxic tort claim, the plaintiff sued our client, among dozens of other defendants, alleging they each manufactured, distributed, or otherwise supplied products containing respirable crystalline silica, which the plaintiff inhaled while working on or around their products throughout his career as a stone fabricator, sustaining serious injury. In their motion for summary judgment, Joshua and Kelsie argued that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that our client supplied any products to him or any of his worksites throughout his 20-year career. The court agreed, granting the motion and ruling that the plaintiff “fails to meet his burden of proving a triable issue of material fact remains” regarding whether Wilson Elser’s client caused his injuries, thwarting a last multi million dollar demand.

Stu Miller (Partner-White Plains) appeared as trial counsel in a matter pending in Volusia County Circuit Court, Florida. Within just two weeks of parachuting in, Stu and colleague Camille Blanton (Of Counsel-Miami), joined by the underlying firm, secured a $20,000 verdict against a $1.8 million demand, with liability having been conceded by the client, a chemical tanker company. The client was delivering chlorine bleach to a pool company and accidentally pumped it into an acid tank during a rainstorm, causing a hydrochloride acid plume. The plaintiff, who was in the surrounding area, was transported to a hospital via ambulance in pulmonary distress and later claimed permanent chronic lung defects.