Representative Reported Cases

A listing of Anne Guillory’s published cases, with citations.

McCarty v. Arch Wood Prot., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44536 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2016), adopted by McCarty v. Arch Wood Prot., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44883 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016). Defend a wood preservative manufacturer against a plaintiff claiming he developed a rare lung condition from exposure to a treated wood product. Plaintiff disclosed seven expert witnesses to establish medical causation. In one consolidated Daubert motion, the defendants jointly sought to exclude all seven experts based upon the speculative nature of their opinions. The court granted our motion, excluded all seven experts and granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s most significant claims. Thereafter the case resolved favorably for our client.

Nissan Motor Co. v. Maddox, 486 S.W.3d 838 (Ky. 2015). Automotive crashworthiness case alleging restraint system and seat design defects. On appeal, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the punitive damages award because automaker met or exceeded FMVSS requirements and there was no evidence of gross negligence or reckless disregard.

Hiser v. Seay, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168429 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 4, 2014). Product liability suit against vehicle manufacturer. Successful removal of case to federal court more than one year after suit was filed based upon “bad faith exception” of 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(1).

McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 2014 Ky. App. LEXIS 25 (Ky. App. Feb. 20, 2014) (unpublished). Asbestos product liability case. Defense verdict at trial in favor of cigarette manufacturer affirmed on appeal.

Rodrock v. Gumz, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57245 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2012). Represented plaintiffs in business dispute related to stallion management and partnership agreements. Trial court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss four of our claims and found that the economic loss rule did not apply to service contracts.

Williams v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6724 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 20, 2012). Summary judgment entered in favor of vehicle manufacturer due to insufficient evidence presented by plaintiff to support product liability claim.

Messerly v. Nissan North America, Inc., 2011 Ky. App. LEXIS 234 (Ky. App. Dec. 2, 2011). Product liability case alleging that child’s death was caused by absence of rear camera in sport utility vehicle.

ISP Chemicals LLC v. Dutchland, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72701 (W.D. Ky. July 6, 2011). Defended a family-owned wastewater tank design company where plaintiff alleged negligent engineering and construction of a concrete wastewater treatment tank. Trial court reversed its previous ruling and found that the majority of plaintiff’s claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitation for professional negligence. In related rulings, the court excluded several opinions by one of plaintiff’s expert witnesses. Finally, less than one month before trial, the court granted us permission to file an additional dispositive motion based upon Kentucky’s recent adoption of the economic loss rule. With that motion pending, the case resolved favorably and enabled our client to remain in business.

Walker v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 610 F.Supp.2d 785 (W.D. Ky. 2009). Multiple fatality house fire allegedly caused by careless smoker. Motion to dismiss granted in favor of cigarette manufacturer.

Early v. Toyota Motor Corp., 277 Fed. Appx. 581 (6th Cir. 2008). Double fatality carbon monoxide poisoning case brought against vehicle manufacturer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert under Daubert and affirmed summary judgment for manufacturer. See also Early v. Toyota Motor Corp., 486 F. Supp. 2d 633 (E.D. Ky. 2007) (district court’s opinion excluding expert).

General Electric Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2007). Represented multiple defendants in asbestos premises liability case. The appeal resulted in a significant opinion by the Kentucky Supreme Court applying the exclusive remedy provisions of the Kentucky workers compensation act, known as the “up the ladder” defense.