San Francisco partners Juliana Salfiti and Nicole Jones, and Kelsie Longerbeam (Associate-San Francisco) prevailed on a motion for terminating sanctions in the Superior Court of Sacramento, California, on behalf of a major Wilson Elser transportation client, resulting in dismissal of the plaintiff’s personal injury action. Throughout the litigation, the plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to discovery, including requests for admission. To address these deficiencies, Juliana and Kelsie filed three motions to compel discovery and a motion to deem facts admitted, all of which the court granted. Despite these rulings, the plaintiff continued to ignore discovery obligations and remained otherwise unresponsive. As such, Nicole and Kelsie prepared and filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s case, with Wilson Elser’s diligent pursuit of compliance through five separate motions securing a favorable result for the client and effectively eliminating the potential exposure to a multi-thousand-dollar settlement. 

Lindsay M. Gray (Partner-Louisville) and Trey Shoemaker (Associate-Louisville) prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in Jefferson County Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky, on behalf of a transportation network company (TNC) client. The plaintiffs, a TNC driver and a rider, asserted that the TNC was required to maintain uninsured motorist coverage; that the written agreements between the plaintiffs and the TNC were, in part, agreements to maintain insurance; and that the arbitration provisions in the written agreements were contracts of adhesion or otherwise unconscionable. Following extensive briefing, Lindsay and Trey filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, arguing that the plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration provisions and that the Circuit Court was not the mutually agreed-upon venue for resolving the dispute. The court granted the Wilson Elser team’s motion, finding that the arbitration provisions in the written agreements were binding and that there was no evidence that the agreements were contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, or otherwise non-binding as a matter of public policy. This ruling strengthens Kentucky precedent supporting the validity of arbitration provisions in written agreements used by TNCs, so long as they meet basic requirements for notice and reasonable opt-out provisions. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ subsequent motion to make the order final and appealable.

Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate, Stamford, CT) prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration in Danbury Superior Court, Danbury, Connecticut, for Wilson Elser’s multinational technology company client. The plaintiff alleged he was injured in a two-vehicle collision involving a co-defendant driver and claimed our client was vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff maintained that the driver was our client's employee because he was using the client's app and transporting a passenger acquired through the company’s platform at the time of the accident.

Once litigation began, Eric and Casey filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to our client's Terms of Service. After oral argument, the court required additional briefing from Wilson Elser on other motions to compel filed on our client’s behalf in the state, as well as arbitration agreements and clickwrap agreements. Following that briefing, the court granted the motion, the judge relying on caselaw cited in Eric and Casey’s motion and the applicable agreement between our client and the plaintiff.

Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate, Stamford, CT) succeeded on a motion to compel arbitration in Stamford Superior Court, Stamford, Connecticut, for Wilson Elser’s multinational technology company client. The plaintiff alleged he was injured in a two-vehicle collision involving a codefendant driver and claimed that our client was vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff maintained that the driver was our client's employee because he was using the client's app and transporting a passenger obtained through the company’s platform at the time of the accident.

Once litigation began, Eric and Casey filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to our client's Terms of Service. After oral argument, the court requested the plaintiff’s deposition transcript before issuing a ruling. The court granted the motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, relying on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in ruling in favor of our client.

Brian Cieniawski (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ), Celeena Pompeo (Partner-Orange County | Los Angeles, CA), and Phoenix, Arizona, associates Nicholas Merritt and Marcus Martinez defended an major transportation client regarding a tractor–trailer incident in Mohave County, Arizona, in which plaintiff alleged that multiple driver side wheels separated from a trailer hauling freight. The plaintiff attempted to add our client as a defendant more than five months after the two year limitations period expired. Our defense focused on a straightforward statute of limitations bar under A.R.S. § 12 542 and the inapplicability of fictitious defendant practice to an out of time party addition; we also emphasized the absence of timely notice or any “mistake” in identity to satisfy Rule 15(c)’s relation back requirements, and the availability of public information that would have identified the trailer’s owner earlier. The court granted our motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Matt Rowan (Partner-Tyler, TX) and Morgan Wood (Of Counsel-Tyler, TX) defended the insured (a farm truck driver) in a stipulated liability case involving a motor vehicle accident where the driver impacted the plaintiff’s vehicle while delivering a load of stone to a local distributor in inclement weather. The plaintiff claimed a traumatic brain injury and significant damages from the accident and alleged gross negligence. The plaintiff was demanding $7.3 million in damages.  The defense disputed the amount of damages as the evidence did not show such an extent of damage to the plaintiff, and disputed gross negligence. After a four-day trial in Denton County, Texas, wherein the plaintiff only sought non-economic damages (physical pain, mental anguish and physical impairment) in the amount of $7.3 million, the jury returned a verdict awarding only $44,500 in damages to the plaintiff (which was even less than the defense asked for in their closing argument) and denying gross negligence in full.  This was a big win for the insured.

Philadelphia of counsel Nigel Greene and Jason Rojas obtained a favorable verdict in a trial in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas of a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff, who was operating a commercial patient transport shuttle, and our insured driver, who was operating a commercial flatbed truck. As our driver passed the plaintiff’s shuttle, fencing on our client’s truck contacted the shuttle. The plaintiff claimed injuries and pursued a workers’ compensation claim. As a result, the plaintiff had a workers’ compensation lien totaling $96,729.81when she filed a civil suit against our client. Initially, the plaintiff filed her case at the arbitration division in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. However, after the plaintiff received a $5,000 award, she appealed and transferred the case to the major jury division for a jury trial. At the pre-trial conference, the plaintiff made a $2 million demand. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the 30-year-old plaintiff would need a lumbar spinal fusion costing $60,000 to $100,000 and would experience pain and suffering for the rest of her life. Nigel and Jason retained a spinal surgeon who rebutted the report and stated that the plaintiff only sustained strains and sprains and did not require surgery. During trial, the judge ordered the full workers’ compensation lien be placed on the verdict sheet as required damages and directed the jury to enter a finding of negligence against our driver. Despite the adverse rulings of the court, the jury awarded the amount of the lien plus $5,000 for pain and suffering. They jury awarded nothing for future medical treatment.

Kammann Cole (Partner-San Diego, CA) and Katharine Burlington (Associate-San Diego, CA) secured summary judgment on behalf of a commercial trucking company resulting in full dismissal. Three minor successors in interest had asserted negligence claims and issued a policy-limits settlement demand following a motor vehicle accident involving the decedent and the client’s big rig. At the time of the collision, the decedent was under the influence, unlicensed, and had a prior felony conviction for unsafe vehicle operation. Kammann and Katharine successfully negotiated voluntary dismissals from two of the plaintiffs, while the third refused. They then moved for summary judgment in Riverside County Superior Court, which was granted in full, eliminating all claims against the client.

Beata Shapiro (Partner-Boston, MA) and Dennis Maher (Associate-Boston, MA) obtained summary judgment in favor of a client shipping company, resulting in dismissal of claims of negligent selection and vicarious liability over an independent trucking company and its driver, who was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of a motorcycle driver. At the time of the accident the truck driver had completed delivery of the shipping company’s cargo and was on his way home in the truck. In granting the motion, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that any agency relationship or control by the defendant had ended prior to the accident, and that the truck driver was not acting within the scope of any employment or agency relationship when the accident occurred (as asserted by the plaintiff – the Estate of the motorcyclist). Additionally, the court found no evidence that our client was negligent in hiring or supervising the driver as his driving record did not document any accidents and our client had no reason to believe he was unfit to operate the truck. This decision is significant as it reinforces the principle that vicarious liability for the actions of independent contractors or agents does not extend beyond the scope of employment or agency, particularly when the individual is engaged in personal activities after completing work duties. The case provides valuable guidance for logistics contracts and structures.

Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ), William Cook (Partner-Detroit, MI), and Katherine Beres (Of-Counsel-Detroit, MI) prevailed on behalf of a Canadian international logistics company in Monroe County Circuit Court, Monroe, Michigan. The plaintiff alleged that when the vehicle she was a passenger in stopped in the dark in the middle of an unlit interstate highway at night and was rear-ended by a semi-truck driven by our client's driver, the driver was at fault. However, the truck’s dash camera video of the accident clearly demonstrated that the vehicle that plaintiff occupied was not visible until one second prior to the accident thereby creating a sudden and unavoidable collision. When the plaintiff refused to negotiate in good faith, Brian, Bill, and Kate filed a dispositive motion explaining how the evidence demonstrated that the driver was not negligent. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the case.

New York City Of Counsel Saige Subick and Partner Guy Levasseur obtained summary judgment for our private-sector transit operator client on liability dismissing a New York state court case in which a bus passenger claimed catastrophic injuries after a bus stopped suddenly when cut off by a vehicle that fled the scene. The court found Saige and Guy met the burden of proof in showing an emergency doctrine situation existed as a result of the actions of the non-party vehicle. Saige appeared for oral argument three separate times for several hours overall, as there were multiple judges who were assigned to the case. The plaintiff alleged a shoulder injury and a stroke such that he has not worked since April 2021. The potential exposure/sustainable value exceeded $3 million. The decision is even more rewarding as the plaintiff’s counsel had improperly moved for sanctions, preclusion, and to strike our answer for the alleged failure to provide all discovery sought (that motion was denied but only after more than a year of motion practice).

New York City partners Adam Guzik and Guy Levasseur obtained summary judgment for the firm’s client, the largest private-sector transit operator in North America, in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County. The matter involved a bus passenger who was injured when our client’s bus veered into a guardrail on the side of the road after a steering component failed. The court found Guy and Adam met the burden of proof in showing an emergency doctrine situation existed as a result of the sudden loss of steering with no notice, and where evidence in the form of more than 1,800 pages of maintenance records indicated the bus was well maintained. The plaintiff's expert report in opposition was deemed to be purely speculative. The sustainable verdict value at trial could have exceeded $3 million.

Edward M. O'Brien (Partner-Indianapolis, IN) prevailed at the Indiana Court of Appeals in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a serious collision between two tractor-trailers. Eddie defended the firm's insurer client against claims for breach of contract and bad-faith denial of coverage, successfully persuading the trial court that the loss was not covered because the tractor-trailer driver did not meet the insurance policy's driver qualification requirements. In affirming, the Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the loss was covered by the policy and that the policy terms were ambiguous. The Court of Appeals ordered its opinion published, meaning it is binding appellate precedent in Indiana.

Michael Lowry (Partner-Las Vegas) prevailed on a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens for Wilson Elser’s client, a national trucking company. The plaintiffs brought suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of the deceased, the driver of a vehicle that collided with our client’s truck on a Texas roadway. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court of Nevada remanded for further facts. Upon remand, Michael provided the requested additional information, and the district court was again persuaded to grant dismissal. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed again, but this time the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the case should be litigated in a different forum. 

Melinda Flecker (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) and Andreia Bento (Associate-Long Island, NY) prevailed on a Rule 33 dispositive motion in a matter arbitrated by the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiff in this case filed a lawsuit following an automobile accident alleging various negligence claims based on theories of agency/ control, negligent hiring/ retention, and ownership. The Arbitrator found that our global technology company client was not vicariously liable for the actions of the driver because he was an independent contractor and not an employee, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. This win represents another solid addition to the growing list of New York precedents favoring Wilson Elser’s clients.  

Jarad L. Kent (Partner-Dallas/Tyler, TX) and Angela Buchanan (Of Counsel-Dallas) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the 95th Civil District Court, Dallas County, Texas, for a global technology company. This is the second summary judgment in as many weeks obtained by Jarad and Angela on behalf of the clients in this matter. The plaintiffs in this case filed a lawsuit following an automobile accident alleging various claims, including vicarious liability, direct negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiffs sought to recover past medical expenses in excess of $250,000, with a final demand of $1,000,000. After extensive briefing by all sides and oral arguments, the court granted Jarad and Angela’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions regarding all claims brought against the clients, dismissing the case with prejudice. This win represents another solid addition to the growing list of Texas precedents favoring Wilson Elser’s clients.

Jarad Kent (Partner-Dallas/Tyler, TX) and Angela Buchanan (Of Counsel-Dallas, TX) obtained a complete summary judgment on behalf of a global technology company, in a case pending in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division. The plaintiffs filed suit against our client following an automobile accident, alleging various claims of vicarious liability, direct negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiffs' most recent demand was for $10 million and each of the plaintiffs was seeking close to $30 million, inclusive of nearly $1 million in claimed past medical expenses. After extensive briefing by all sides and months of consideration of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the Federal Court Judge issued his Memorandum Opinion and Order completely granting Jarad and Angela’s pending dispositive motions finding there was no vicarious liability, no direct negligence and no gross negligence, a resounding victory on a highly contentious case.

Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix) and Arman Nafisi (Partner-Phoenix) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Iowa District Court, Polk County, on behalf of an international semi-truck equipment dealer. In this clear-fault case, plaintiff was rear-ended by a semi-truck tractor and filed a lawsuit alleging negligence on the part of the driver. The plaintiff brought vicarious liability claims alleging high six-figure damages against our client, the lessor of the semi-truck, as well as the driver’s employer, who leased the truck from our client. Brian and Arman took over defense of the litigation in the middle of discovery, from prior defense counsel. At the conclusion of discovery, Brian and Arman filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's claim against the client is precluded by the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute limiting the liability of vehicle rental and leasing companies and barring vicarious liability claims in motor vehicle accidents. Following briefing and oral argument, the Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice against our client. The case was set to go to trial later this year and saved the client significant legal cost and risk exposure.

Dov Szego (Of Counsel, McLean, VA) and Giovanna Bonafede (Associate, McLean, VA) obtained dismissal with prejudice on demurrer (Virginia failure to state a claim equivalent) in a negligent entrustment case. The plaintiff sued our client, a car leasing company, for alleged negligence in leasing a truck to a trucking company with a record of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration violations and to the driver of the leased truck, who had a criminal record. The plaintiff sought $5 million in damages for injuries she sustained in an accident involving the leased truck. Dov and Giovanna’s defense included the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, which provides: “An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person…shall not be liable under the law of any state or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle…, for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease.”  The statute has a carveout for “negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner,” and the plaintiff argued that leasing to those with poor records constituted such negligence. The Circuit Court for the County of Chesterfield breezed past the Graves Amendment issue, and found that there is no legally recognizable duty for the lessor of a vehicle to do such vetting of lessees, noting that thousands of vehicles are rented every day yet such a theory had never been sustained in Virginia. The case proceeds against the driver of the rented vehicle and his employer, the trucking company that rented the vehicle.

Jarad Kent (Partner-Tyler, TX) and Camille Kraft (Associate-Houston) prevailed on a quick motion for summary judgment on behalf of a global technology company in the 152nd District Court, Harris County. The plaintiff sued our client following an automobile accident. Jarad and Camille filed a quick motion for summary judgment, presenting arguments and clear and direct evidence establishing no liability on the client's part and directly refuting the arguments raised by the plaintiff in response to the motion. On the eve of the motion hearing, the plaintiff's counsel agreed to a voluntary dismissal of all claims brought against the client. Jarad and Camille’s strategy in filing the quick motion for summary judgment and their aggressive push-back against opposing counsel's arguments prompted capitulation, making for a speedy and decisive win for Wilson Elser’s client.

Beata Shapiro (Partner-Boston, MA) and Anne Kim (Associate-Boston, MA) obtained dismissal in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court of all claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a shipper of cargo, arising out of a fatal motor vehicle accident in the course of the interstate shipment. The decedent’s estate alleged that the shipper was negligent in arranging for the shipment of goods and vicariously negligent and in a joint venture with the motor carrier involved in the accident. Beata and Anne argued the still-novel theory that all of the tort claims against the shipper were preempted by the Federal Aviation Authorization Administration Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 14501, et seq. (the FAAAA), despite another Florida state court having recently held that FAAAA preemption does not preempt claims against a freight broker arising in a wrongful death case, and that no Florida court and only two Ohio federal courts and one Wisconsin federal court had previously examined the issue of whether claims against a shipper for personal injury or wrongful death are preempted by the FAAAA. The court granted dismissal, finding the current and majority thinking on FAAAA preemption in general as reflected in the Seventh and Eleventh circuit court decisions to be persuasive authority in favor of preemption and finding that the Ninth Circuit decision finding that the safety exception under FAAAA to save the claims to be incorrect in applying a presumption against preemption and in too broadly applying the safety exception.

Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ), William Cook (Partner-Detroit, MI) and Katherine Beres (Associate-Detroit, MI) obtained summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Wilson Elser's client, an international  Canadian logistics company. The plaintiff alleges that when his vehicle collided with a semi-truck driven by our client's driver, the driver was at fault. However, the dash camera video of the accident clearly shows the driver remained in his lane on the expressway and that the plaintiff lost control of his vehicle, causing the collision. When the plaintiff's counsel refused to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit, Brian, Bill and Kate filed a dispositive motion explaining how the video demonstrated that the plaintiff caused the accident, not our client's driver. The federal judge in a strong decision found that the collision was 100 percent the fault of the plaintiff and that no reasonable juror would conclude otherwise. The court therefore dismissed the case.  This decision saved the client insurer significant legal fees and exposure to serious injuries as well as a large settlement demand. This decision supports that the use of dash cams in the commercial trucking setting has a positive return on investment. 

Nigel Greene (Of Counsel-Philadelphia) prevailed against a motion for reconsideration in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for Wilson Elser’s client, a Philadelphia bus tour company. In the underlying case, the plaintiff alleged that our client allowed him to exit a touring vehicle at a location where a depressed grate in the road created a tripping hazard. Nigel successfully argued that under the law, the touring company was not responsible for the condition of the roadway, nor was there a breach of legal duty owed to the plaintiff regarding the condition of the roadway at the location where the plaintiff exited the vehicle. The court concurred, granting Nigel’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Rebecca Young (Partner-Birmingham, AL) obtained a dismissal of all claims against one the country’s largest mobile communication and internet service providers arising out of a truck accident involving one of the company’s drivers. Rebecca first successfully removed the case to federal court to avoid a highly unfavorable venue. Even though the complaint did not provide an exact amount of damages, Rebecca argued that the amount in controversy was satisfied because the plaintiffs alleged an unspecified amount of punitive damages, which the Fifth Circuit has deemed to exceed the federal jurisdictional minimum. Once in federal court, Rebecca argued that the plaintiffs’ claims failed to satisfy the plausibility standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi agreed and dismissed all claims against the client. 

Jarad Kent (Partner-Dallas/Tyler, TX) and Morgan Wood (Associate-Tyler, TX) defended a client involved in a motor vehicle accident. Both drivers were making left-hand turns out of parking lots across the road from each other when they collided. Each side faulted the other for the accident. Our client, through separate counsel, asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff, who was logged into the driver version of DoorDash at the time of the accident.  The counterclaims resolved a week prior to trial, leaving only the plaintiff's affirmative claims against our client. After a one-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict finding the plaintiff to be 70 percent at fault for the accident and our client only 30 percent at fault.

Stu Miller (Partner-New York, NY) and Phoenix, Arizona, partners Brian Del Gatto and Arman Nafisi secured a voluntary dismissal of a global logistics company client from a suit in Arizona. The plaintiff sustained significant property damage loss after a driver, operating a vehicle owned by our client, negligently collided with the plaintiff's vehicle. The driver, however, was working for a different company our client had contracted with at the time of the accident. Arman and Brian, through early, proactive fact-gathering and investigation efforts in coordination with the client, discovered these facts and obtained the subject contract early enough in the case to persuade the plaintiff to amend its Complaint and dismiss our client from the case.

Dirk Muse (Of Counsel-Seattle, WA) and Carinne Bannan (Associate-Seattle, WA) obtained a favorable verdict in King County Superior Court, Washington, in a wrongful death case where the decedent’s estate asked the jury to award $87 million. The 78-year old decedent, suffering from stage IV breast cancer, was being transported to the hospital in the insured’s ambulance when it collided head-on with a freeway divider. The estate alleged that (1) the insured’s EMTs failed to properly secure the patient to the gurney with all available straps, and (2) that the driver failed to exercise due regard while driving an emergency vehicle. As a result of the accident, the decedent suffered multiple fractures to his ribs and spine and ultimately passed away approximately 7.5 hours later. The decedent’s sister was the only statutory beneficiary. Approximately six months before trial, Wilson Elser was asked to substitute in as counsel for the ambulance company. A month before trial, the parties mediated, but the estate never dropped below $22 million. Shortly before trial, Dirk and Carinne admitted liability and proceeded only on the issue of damages. In his closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury to award $87 million. We suggested that $900,000 was a fair and reasonable award. After roughly three hours of deliberating, the jury returned a verdict for $2.3 million, significantly less than the $5 million policy limits and the estate’s ask to the jury.

Beata Shapiro (Partner-Boston, MA), Anne Kim (Associate-Boston, MA) and Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) obtained dismissal of a suit claiming more than $3 million in damages for theft of a shipment of cell phones in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida based on federal preemption of state law claims under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and on the plaintiff's failure to sufficiently plead a breach of contract claim. The decision is particularly significant in that it expands case law on FAAAA preemption to apply to claims against non-brokers and non–motor carriers to any party that is involved in the arrangement for transportation of cargo, such as shippers. Our client had a contract with the shipper to provide warehousing services and occasionally arrange for outbound transportation of its customer’s goods. Our client hired a freight broker to arrange the shipment with a motor carrier, and the broker hired a motor carrier to transport it. That motor carrier hired another motor carrier. The shipment was stolen while in the possession of the second motor carrier. On motion, Beata, Anne and Brian argued that the FAAAA's explicit preemption applies to the negligence claim against our client, even though our client was not a broker or a motor carrier, because such claims would seek to indirectly regulate the prices, routes and services of brokers and motor carriers. The court granted the motion, finding that the negligence claim by the plaintiff seeks to indirectly regulate the prices, routes and services of motor carriers and brokers, and is therefore preempted under FAAAA. In dismissing the breach of contract claim as well, the court determined that the plaintiff cannot merely argue that just because the cargo was stolen, our client must have breached the contract. The court further held that the dismissal was with prejudice and that the plaintiff could not seek to amend the complaint.

Erik Connell (Of Counsel-Seattle, WA) obtained a favorable result in an arbitration in Yakima County, Washington, in an automobile accident case against Wilson Elser’s client, a non-emergency medical transportation company. The plaintiff alleged injuries arising from the accident, and fault was admitted. The plaintiff originally alleged $21,188 in medical bills to the Arbitrator, but lowered this amount to $14,084 after Erik argued that the plaintiff was disallowed from claiming most of the medical bills. The plaintiff asked the Arbitrator for $101,406. The Arbitrator awarded $14,930. The claims adjuster had offered the plaintiff’s counsel $35,000 prior to arbitration.