M. Gabrielle Hils

Represented a generic drug manufacturer in thousands of product liability cases where plaintiffs alleged pulmonary and cardiac injury from ingestion of diet drugs. The cases were pending in federal multidistrict litigation proceedings in E. D. of Pennsylvania, and in various state courts in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and California.

Served as national coordinating counsel, for defendant premises owners in asbestos premises cases pending in state and federal courts. Our client owned and operated facilities were plaintiffs alleged they were exposed to asbestos while working on the premises. We successfully resolved numerous cases through voluntary dismissals and motion practice.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a large automobile distributor in class action litigation initiated in Ohio and Kentucky, alleging the automobiles distributed by our client that were subject of a nationwide recall, unintentionally accelerated or were prone to such an alleged defect. The class action plaintiffs alleged a variety of claims, including fraud, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligence, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs also sought compensatory relief in the form of diminished value of the subject vehicles or injunctive relief. Dinsmore & Shohl either successfully removed all such actions to federal court, where they were consolidated in multi-district litigation, or obtained a dismissal of the entire suit.

Successful defense of financial institutions, loan servicers and finance companies in multiple claims and cases involving borrower allegations of predatory lending and violation of state and federal consumer protection statutes. Our representation also included the resolution of force-placed insurance claims and title defects.

Representation of health care insurers seeking enforcement of their contractual subrogation rights in tort litigation.

We defended a national insurance company in a putative class action case regarding the application of an insurance premium tax in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky statutes authorize Kentucky cities and counties to impose and collect a tax on insurance premiums. The statute permits insurance companies to collect the tax and keep a portion of the amount they have collected upon remittance of the appropriate amount to the taxing body. The proposed class consisted of all persons or entities in the state who paid a surcharge on their insurance premiums pursuant to a tax imposed by a local government. The proposed class definition contained no time limit as to the claims asserted.

The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.

We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.

Served as national coordinating counsel for manufacturer of generic hormone replacement therapy drugs in federal multidistrict litigation proceedings in the E. D. of Arkansas, as well as other state court consolidated proceedings.