Alexis B. Mattingly


Jury Sides with Client Over Plaintiff Seeking Hundreds of Thousands in Damages

We represented a national convenience store chain in a civil action in which a customer alleged that she slipped and fell on an unknown liquid near one of the gas pumps. She sued the convenience store chain for past and future medical expenses, as well as past and future pain and suffering. She alleged permanent injuries to her elbow, shoulder and neck. Through pretrial motions we filed and were granted by the court, the plaintiff’s possible damages were reduced by approximately $110,000. Damages sought by the plaintiff at trial totaled over $500,000. We argued that the premises were not unsafe or, alternatively, that the liquid had not been on the ground long enough for anyone to know of it or warn the customer to avoid it. The jury found the convenience store chain was not at fault and awarded no damages.

Received Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurance Company

Client: An Insurance Provider

We represented our client, an insurance provider, who was named in a lawsuit following a boating accident. Several young adults were using the boat during the accident, which resulted in several serious injuries. One of those injured sued several insurance companies seeking a declaration as to the scope and amount of all coverages provided by the named insurers, a declaration as to the scope and amount of any underinsured motorist coverage, and other coverage possibly available. Specifically, the plaintiff sought a declaration concerning the scope and amount of coverage provided under certain homeowners and automobile insurance policies issued by our client. We ultimately received complete summary judgment in favor of our client as the court determined there was no coverage under either policy.

Representation of insurance company in coverage dispute leads to successful summary judgment for client

Our client, a national insurance company, was the issuer of a Surplus Lines Policy for a bar. After a physical altercation between some bar patrons and employees, our client denied coverage based on exclusions in the insurance policy. The plaintiff sued our client asserting claims of reasonable expectation of coverage, on the grounds the policy, as written, did not provide meaningful coverage and that the policy at issue was unconscionable and/or the exclusions at issue were ambiguous and inconspicuous. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to assert a claim that our client was not authorized to issue the policy at issue and violated West Virginia law by doing so. After years of discovery and multiple rounds of summary judgment briefings, the trial court granted summary judgment in our favor, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against us.

Partial Summary Judgment and Evidentiary Motion lead to settlement for client

Our client, a national convenience store chain, was involved in litigation due to a slip and fall. The plaintiff alleged soft tissue injuries and more serious injuries that resulted in back surgeries as a result, and the amount sought by the plaintiff was very high. However, the treating physician was unable to substantiate the cause of the injury, and the plaintiff’s legal team failed to comply with deadlines with respect to expert witnesses. We were able to obtain partial summary judgment and an evidentiary motion to exclude portions of testimony by the plaintiff’s physician. As a result, we settled the case for a satisfactory amount for our client.

Woman alleges client’s cleaning product turned her skin orange

Our client, a Multi-National Consumer & Professional Good Manufacturer, manufactured a liquid-type cleaning product that contained a fragrance that made it smell of oranges. In this product liability case, a cleaning lady, who had used the product, claimed it had turned her skin an orange color and damaged her liver. Through our investigation, we determined rather than being the result of the use of the product, a localized outbreak of a viral infection may have been responsible for the damage. As a result, the Court returned a judgment in favor of our client.

Defense verdict at trial after partial summary judgment for client substantially decreases potential damages

We initially obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of our client, a national convenience store chain, on issue of causation. The plaintiff was claiming damages close to $300,000 dollars due to personal injury and lost wages in a premises liability suit. Due to the partial summary judgment in the case, the potential damages recoverable by Plaintiff were substantially less. We went to trial in federal court on the remaining damages and obtained a defense verdict on behalf of our client.

Federal judge rules in our client’s favor on Protected Work Product Doctrine

During a premises liability case involving our client, a national convenience store chain, the plaintiff’s attorney wanted to review materials we collected during the discovery phase. This material consisted of sworn statements from employees who witnessed/investigated the incident. A federal judge ruled in our favor based on the Work Product Doctrine, which protects materials the client or attorney create after litigation is initiated.

No negligence verdict for client in slip-and-fall case

The plaintiff claimed a soft tissue back injury due to a slip-and-fall on snow and ice outside of our client’s, a national convenience store chain, store. We received a defense verdict at trial on the basis there was no negligence (no breach of any duty) on our client’s part.

Partial summary judgment for client in breach of agreement dispute

On behalf of our client, a subsidiary of a national consumer goods company, we obtained a partial summary judgment regarding a contract dispute between our client and a supplier. The court agreed with our client’s right to refuse wood waste, which is used in the production of charcoal, delivered by the plaintiff. This resulted in a significant reduction in the potential amount of damages the supplier could claim at trial, which ultimately paved the way for a settlement between parties.

Summary judgment for client in deliberate intent case

Our client, a large chemical company, was accused of Deliberate Intent. Deliberate Intent is an extension of Workers’ Compensation in which an employee may collect extra compensation if the employer is shown to have deliberately and intentionally exposed the employee to harm.

In this case, the plaintiff claimed a variety of health conditions due to exposure to toxic chemicals. Our client received summary judgment due to insufficient evidence. The court also found that a prior settlement agreement released our client from any claims against them.

Summary judgment for client in pedestrian railroad accident

The plaintiff was attempting to cross railroad tracks in a non-designated crossing at night when a train, operated by our client, an international transportation company, struck him. The incident caused the plaintiff to have both of his legs amputated. He sued on the grounds he felt the area should have been more secured to prohibit crossings and the engineers should have kept better watch of the area.

The train, which was in the process of backing, had an end of train device to indicate the train was moving. Furthermore, the plaintiff was deemed a trespasser. As a result, the court delivered a summary judgment in favor of our client, and the West Virginia Supreme Court declined to review the case.

Summary judgment for client in pool injury case

Our client, a national recreation facility, was being sued by a woman who was allegedly injured by another swimmer during a swim class. The plaintiff alleged our client was negligent by not keeping proper supervision of pool and its swimmers. The Court issued a summary judgment since it deemed the pool was a reasonably safe place to be.

Summary judgment for client in sexual harassment and gender discrimination suit

Our client, a locally operated nonprofit day care center, was sued by a former employee. The plaintiff claimed sexual harassment and gender discrimination. We were able to obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client on grounds of insufficient proof. Due to the nature of this case, it received local and national attention.