Defending multiple product liability cases involving joint replacement products.

We defended a husband and wife, homeowners, who had rented their home to the plaintiffs, a husband, wife, and infant child. Approximately 2 months after moving into the home the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia a relatively rare but known blood disorder. Autoimmune pancytopenia is a depression of the blood cell lines, reds, whites, and neutrophils. At about the same time that the infant child was diagnosed with autoimmune pancytopenia, mold, including stachybotrys mold, was discovered in the home. The plaintiffs claimed that they were forced to abandon the home, destroy all of their personal property, and further that the mold exposure caused the infant child's autoimmune pancytopenia. The theories of recovery asserted against the defendant home owners were of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the warranty of habitability. At trial plaintiffs proceeded solely on their negligence theory.

During pretrial discovery it became clear that the plaintiffs' expert on the contention that the alleged mold exposure caused the infant's autoimmune pancytopenia was not following generally accepted scientific/medical methodology to reach his causation opinion. On behalf of the home owners, we filed a Frye motion to exclude this expert. After extensive depositions of both the plaintiffs' expert and our expert as well as briefing and arguing the issue, the trial judge excluded the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused the infant son's autoimmune pancytopenia. At trial, plaintiffs proceeded on their property damage claim and also on the theory that their infant son's asthma was caused by the alleged mold exposure in the home.

Following three days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for less than 10% of the claimed property damage and a defense verdict on the asthma claim.

Plaintiffs filed post trial motions seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert on autoimmune pancytopenia. The trial judge affirmed his decision. The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused autoimmune pancytopenia.

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.

Defended manufacturer against product liability claims, resulting in defense verdict at trial affirmed on appeal. Defended premises liability case, obtaining summary judgment affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Dinsmore & Shohl defended a national seller of manufactured housing in state and federal court against class action claims related to the alleged inherent risks of fire and injury associated with manufactured housing. Following successful motion practice, all claims were dismissed in both state and federal courts.

Defended firearm manufacturers against design defect allegations.

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

Dinsmore & Shohl represented Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the MDL litigation involving claims of personal injury for exposure to silica.  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, remanded the cases to the Mississippi State Courts.  The cases were then dismissed.

Successfully defended numerous commercial and fraud-based claims seeking in excess of $9 million against John Deere. Obtained pre-trial dismissal of claims accounting for over 99% of the damages sought and then settled the remainder of the action favorably for the client.