Plaintiff filed suit against our client, a general contractor, seeking $100,000 for defects in Plaintiff's home related to the use of synthetic stucco (EIFS) material.  Dinsmore & Shohl obtained a dismissal in favor of the general contractor on the basis of the North Carolina Statute of Repose.

Plaintiffs filed a $300,000 suit against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home related to moisture intrusion and structural defects.  The general contractor in turned filed suit against 12 different subcontractors.  The case was settled favorably for the client after two days of mediation.

Plaintiff filed suit for $1,000,000 against our client, the general contractor, for defects in Plaintiff's home. The claim went through a week-long arbitration, settling favorably for the client before a verdict was rendered.

Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against our client, an insurance company, seeking coverage in excess of $75,000 for moisture intrusion damage due to defects in Plaintiff's home.  The case was removed to Federal court, was never certified as a class action and was eventually dismissed.

Plaintiff sued our client, a plastics manufacturer, for personal injury and product liability when a chair manufactured by the client broke.  The case was settled at mediation.

Plaintiffs filed a $200,000 suit against the general contractor, who in turn filed suit against our client, a window manufacturer, for alleged defects in the windows.  The case was settled after mediation.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Owens Illinois in lawsuits filed in Southern Ohio by numerous workers alleging personal injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These cases resulted in either settlement, dismissal or a jury verdict for the defense.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a major cigarette manufacturer (American Tobacco) in a smoking and health case involving allegations of peripheral vascular disease causation and corporate misconduct that was tried in Federal Court in Kansas City, Kansas in 2002.  The case resulted in a small compensatory damages verdict against American Tobacco in the amount of $1984.00 (yes, that is the correct number) and no punitive damages.  After the verdict was rendered the case against American Tobacco was dismissed without payment.

Plaintiff hotel owners filed a $300,000 suit against our client, a painting and moisture proofing subcontractor, and against the coating manufacturer for moisture damage to the hotel.  The claim settled favorably for the client after mediation and before trial.

A medical monitoring action tried to a defense verdict in state court in Wheeling, West Virginia in 2001 that was instituted against multiple tobacco companies by a class of West Virginia smokers who sought medical monitoring in the form of CT scanning and spirometry to screen for smoking related disease.  In this action (which was affirmed on appeal) Dinsmore & Shohl represented The American Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation.  In addition to acting as trial counsel, Dinsmore & Shohl consulted with and retained pre-eminent experts in the fields of public health, preventive medicine and pulmonology to develop and present a scientifically sound defense in emerging areas of law and medicine.

As national coordinating counsel and trial counsel, Dinsmore & Shohl defended a distributor of phentermine in the multi-district product liability litigation related to the diet drug commonly known as fen-phen.  Mr. Brittingham assisted the team that represented the client nationally.  Additionally, as local and regional counsel, Mr. Brittingham managed the litigation and discovery of claims pending in Kentucky, successfully obtaining their dismissals.

Trial counsel for Brown & Williamson in dozens of tobacco/smoking cases including obtaining a defense verdict in a class action in West Virginia making claims for medical monitoring.

Our client, a turbine manufacturer, contracted with a regional gas & electric company for the sale, construction, and installation of a turbine generator and associated equipment for use at one of its power stations.  The gas & electric company filed a suit seeking in excess of $1 million, alleging that during installation, our client failed to properly install the generator and that the generator suffered substantial damage when certain parts broke. Plaintiff asserted claims for negligence and breach of contract.  We obtained summary judgment for the Defendant, arguing the contract and the economic loss rule precluded all of Plaintiff's claims. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment.

Dinsmore & Shohl coordinated on a national basis thousands of lawsuits in state and federal courts. We developed and presented complex medical and scientific evidence on emerging issues, involving silicone chemistry, product integrity, immunology and rheumatology.