GP v. Safeco (U.S. Dist. Court N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Insurer who was named in a  lawsuit where insured alleged it had sustained burglary at  its business and had sustained loss in excess of $500,000 in contents, which the insurer refused to pay. Insurer based its defense on the fact that the insured had failed to timely notify the insurer of the loss as required by the policy.  Upon receiving Defendant's Scheduling Order which outlined this defense, Plaintiff dismissed its lawsuit. [12/08]

Davidson v. Kor-Chem (Superior Court of Fulton County)  Firm represented Kor-Chem who was alleged to have improperly loaded the 18 Wheeler which Plaintiff was driving. While exiting I-24 near Nashville, Plaintiff Davidson lost control of the truck and flipped over while transporting hazardous materials. In total, Plaintiff sustain in excess of $350,000 in damages. Kor-Chem moved for dismissal of case alleging that Plaintiff could not show causation in that the Plaintiff was shown to have been exiting the interstate at a high rate of speed which caused Plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle. Additionally, Plaintiff could not show that he had abrogated his duty to inspect the safety of his cargo before departing for his trip. Court granted Defendant's Motion and the case was dismissed after five years of litigation. [12/08]

Butler v. Buckhead Towing & Clarendon Ins. Co. (Superior Court of Fulton County)  Firm represented Defendants who were alleged to  have improperly loaded a car onto Defendant's tow truck which came off of Defendant's tow truck, causing Defendant to block the entire lane of traffic in which Plaintiff was driving. Plaintiff testified that Defendant did not follow common carrier regulations and did not have its warning lights on while attempting to reload the vehicle which it lost while being towed. Plaintiff did not see Defendant's truck and smashed into the side of the vehicle resulting multiple compound fractures in both of Plaintiff's legs which required multiple surgeries. Plaintiff was hospitalized and had to spend time in a convalescent home for a total of  six months. At trial, Plaintiff and his wife sought in excess of $1,000,000 in damages, including punitive damages, lost wages, future medical expenses, loss of consortium, Attorney's fees and future lost wages.  While the trial court granted a directed verdict on the punitive damages, Attorney's fees, past lost wages, future lost wages, future medical expenses and property damages, the Plaintiffs still sought $750,000 in damages during closing arguments.

After eight hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of only $130,000, which was $20,000 less than the Plaintiff's medical expenses alone, and returned no damages for loss of consortium or pain and suffering for the driver. The case was settled for less than what the jury awarded while the case was on appeal. [11/08]

K.H. v. L. (U.S. Dist. Ct. Ohio) Firm  represented Plaintiff who filed suit  against a national retail chain with over 1,000 stores for  Slander and False Imprisonment after being detained for an hour by Defendant's employee and accused of stealing a child's outfit which Plaintiff's child had actually worn into the store the night they were detained. Firm obtained surveillance video from Mall Security of  the  Plaintiff entering the Mall where the incident occurred immediately after the occurrence which showed the child wearing the clothing she was accused of stealing into the store that evening. This ultimately was critical in proving Plaintiff's case. After Plaintiff left the store, they were stopped and detained and accused of stealing a $70  shorts and sweater outfit. Plaintiffs filed suit and the day after the Plaintiff was deposed, the  Defendants settled the case for exactly thirteen times what they had advised the Court the case was worth during a pre-trial conference five months earlier. The $65,000 settlement was  significant and substantial, especially considering that the locale where the case was pending is known as having the lowest jury verdicts in the state.  [10/08]

Kim v. Esurance (State Court of Fulton County) Firm represented Esurance who had denied claim for insured who had submitted a claim for severe damage to an Audi TT convertible. Esurance obtained a recording  between an Esurance underwriting representative and the insured  who was purchasing a policy over the phone from Esurance  minutes before his "accident". The insured stated that he was at home when he took out the policy over the telephone. During the recording there are sounds of freeway traffic in background and the Plaintiff is heard asking someone where the restroom is located. One minute after the insured finished taking out the policy over the phone,  his cell phone records reflected that he phoned the person he had the accident with prior to the time the accident was alleged to have occurred. Two minutes later, the insured phoned 911 to report the accident. At trial, the Judge dismissed the case against Esurance. [8/08]

Hutchinson  v. Sun Glass Hut (U.S. District Court - N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiffs who filed suit  for  Slander and False Imprisonment.  Plaintiffs  came into Sun Glass Hut to shop for Father's Day Gift. As  Plaintiffs were leaving the store, they were stopped and detained and accused of stealing a $250 pair of sunglasses. Plaintiffs filed suit and shortly thereafter Defendants sought to settle the case. The case settled  shortly after written discovery was commenced but prior to any depositions were taken for a significant confidential amount.  [6/08]

Yenerall  v. Wal-Mart (U.S. District Court - N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit  for Battery, Slander, False Imprisonment.  Plaintiff  came into Wal-Mart with a camera he wished to return. He did not have a receipt and after manager would not accept the return without a receipt, Plaintiff decided to return home after completing his shopping at Wal-Mart. As he left the store, he was physically attacked by store security who failed to follow the seven apprehension protocol adopted by Wal-Mart.  Plaintiff filed suit and shortly thereafter Wal-Mart sought to mediate the case. The case settled  shortly after written discovery was commenced but prior to any depositions for significant confidential five figure amount.  [4/08]

Fidelity National Ins. Co. v. Means (U.S. District Court - M.D. Ala.) Firm represented Insurer who filed Declaratory Judgment action against Insured following filing of claim where insured alleged she had sustained burglary at home and had lost in excess of $40,000 of contents stolen from her home. Fidelity filed Motion for Summary Judgment based on Judicial Estoppel inasmuch as a few months prior to alleged theft, she had filed for Bankruptcy claiming that she only had a total of $3,600 worth of contents in her household prior to the theft. Court granted Summary Judgment on basis of Judicial Estoppel and found no coverage was afforded under the Fraud and Concealment Exclusion contained in the Fidelity Policy. [3/08]

Smith v. Cole (Rockdale County State Court) Firm represented Defendant against three Plaintiffs who filed suit for injuries sustained in rear-end collision. Plaintiffs included mother and two children. Mother and one child testified at trial they were transported to hospital by ambulance. Plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of $37,000. During trial it was shown that Plaintiff's version of the accident, their injuries and medical treatment were significantly different from actual facts. Although a verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiffs, they only received damages totaling $6,500, which was substantially less than sought during trial. [2/08]

Safeco v. Lisa U.S.District Court - N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Insurer in Declaratory Judgment action against women's  apparel store. Insured alleged that she had sustained three losses totaling in excess of $500,000. Insured denied  losses when  it was discovered that prior to obtaining insurance through SAFECO, she had sustained an alleged theft loss in excess of $500,000. Insurer moved for Summary Judgment based on violation of the Fraud and Concealment and Cooperation exclusions in the policy as well as Misrepresentation in the Application. Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of Safeco. [1/08]

Ledgester v. Cook County School District  (Cook County Superior Court) Firm represented School District against lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs  based on allegations that Plaintiff's daughter had been wrongfully removed from school by her non-custodial biological father, who removed her from the state for several days until she was located in North Carolina and later returned to mother. Firm filed several Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of the School District and its employees  on basis that they were entitled to immunity for acts undertaken in the scope of their employment. [11/07]

Steed  v. Wal-Mart (U.S. District Court - N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit  for False Imprisonment.  Plaintiff had been shopping in Defendant's store  when she was stopped, detained for  an hour and accused of shoplifting. Wal-Mart alleged that Plaintiff had an item in her possession not listed on her store receipt which was not in her possession. The case settled  shortly after suit was filed.  [10/07]

Rader v. Chapman Exterminating (Circuit Court of Greene County, Tennessee) Firm represented Exterminating Company and its employee who [8/07] collided with vehicle operated by Plaintiff who sustained in excess of $15,000 in medical expenses as a result of his injuries. Following the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the Court granted Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Chapman and its employee  on basis that they had not been properly served with the Complaint. [8/07]

Erwin v. Catoosa County School District (Superior Court of Catoosa County) Firm represented School Teacher/Coach who injured a student following a baseball game when the Defendant struck the student with a chair which he had slammed down following a close game. The student's knee required surgery and he incurred $25,000 in medical expenses. Defendant moved for Summary Judgment which the Court granted on the basis of sovereign immunity asserted by the District employee. [7/07]

St. Thomas Square v. Dowland (S07A0342 - Ga. Supreme Court) Firm represented St. Thomas Square in where Plaintiff fell on ice in the parking lot. Plaintiff incurred in excess of $54,000 in medical expenses and had remained out of work for over three years due to her injuries. The Plaintiff had been offered $40,000 to settle the case at mediation. The Supreme Court upheld the Jury's Verdict finding that the Plaintiff failed to exercise due care for her own safety when she stepped into an icy parking lot carrying a large purse, large soda and box of frozen meat.   [6/07]

Glass v. Office Depot (State Court of Cobb County). Firm represented Plaintiff who was injured when the chair she purchased at Office Depot gave way while she was leaning down to retrieve an item from the floor. The client sustained severe injuries to her mouth and teeth which required extensive surgery to repair. The medical expenses exceeded $60,000. A products liability suit was filed against Office Depot who placed the defective product into the stream of commerce. The manufacturer was located in Korea and was not brought into the litigation. Once the case was placed on a trial calendar the case settled for a confidential amount. [5/07]

Wilson v. Regions Bank (Settled Prior to Suit) Firm represented homeowner in an action against mortgage company who had mistakenly removed money from homeowner's escrow account and applied it towards another homeowner's property taxes. This left homeowner unable to pay his property taxes. Homeowner received notice that his home was  to be sold by Tax Assessor for non-payment of county property taxes. After firm intervened, the money was restored to homeowners escrow fund, the past due taxes and penalties were paid by mortgage company and mortgage company paid homeowner his incurred attorney's fees as well as  confidential amount in damages. [2/07]

Schneider Transport v. Kor-Chem (Superior Court of Fulton County) Firm represented Chemical Manufacturer who was alleged to have improperly loaded Plaintiff's 18 wheeler which was subsequently involved in single vehicle accident which destroyed Plaintiff's truck and trailer, caused a Haz-Mat incident and injured Plaintiff's driver. Plaintiff brought suit against Firm's client seeking in excess of $400,000 in damages. During discovery, Plaintiff's own expert conceded that the ultimate responsibility for properly loading the trailer involved in the accident rested with the Plaintiff's own driver. After oral arguments on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff decided to dismiss its lawsuit. [12/06]

Turner v. Jones Feed & Grain (State Court of Forsythe County) Firm represented trucking company whose vehicle collided with a retail establishment owned by Plaintiff, severely damaging the building and destroying the contents. Plaintiff was seeking almost $200,000 in damages. Case proceeded through discovery but was quickly settled for $37,000 when an online real estate listing was discovered which indicated that the building was going to be torn down and a new retail shopping center was planned to be built on the property by the Plaintiff. [10/06]

Funicello v. Smith (State Court of Clayton County) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit against Defendant after she had been mauled by a pit bull on her rental property. During the pendency of the Suit, Defendant's carrier filed a Declaratory Judgment action contending there was no coverage due to the fact that it's insured homeowner (Smith) had misrepresented the fact that it owned a pit bull when the application for homeowner's insurance was completed. Firm answered the Declaratory Judgment action and argued that the Declaratory Judgment action was void inasmuch as the homeowner's insurance company had already acted to deny coverage prior to the filing of the D.J. lawsuit. Thereafter the Declaratory Judgment action was dismissed. The case ultimately settled at mediation for a confidential six figure amount, even though the Defendant's homeowner's insurer continued to deny that coverage existed. [10/06]

Xavier Flounnory v. Wal-Mart  (U.S. District Court - N.D. Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit against this National Retailer for False Imprisonment and False Arrest.  Plaintiff' had been a victim of identity theft when a female using the name Michelle Flounnory had written a check on Plaintiff's Checking account in Defendant's store. Despite the fact that  Plaintiff  had met with the Defendant's Accounting Supervisor on four occasions and  provided documents proving that he had his identity stolen and had been living in Memphis at the time the checks were allegedly written in Fayetteville, Ga., Wal-Mart swore out a warrant for Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff arrested. He was detained for several hours in jail. Ultimately the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed by the Court when Defendant failed to appear for Plaintiff's preliminary hearing. After suit was filed the case settled for a confidential amount after it was scheduled to go to Court Ordered mediation.  [9/06]

Luna v. Wal-Mart  (U.S. District Court - N.D. Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit against this National Retailer for False Imprisonment and False Arrest.  Plaintiff' had been shopping in Defendant's store  when he was stopped for allegedly stealing a remote control device which actually belonged to him and he had brought into the store himself.  Plaintiff was detained for several hours in jail. Ultimately the charges against Plaintiff were dismissed by the Court when Defendant failed to produce any witnesses according to court documents. After suit was filed Plaintiff discovered that Wal-Mart had thrown away a surveillance video of Plaintiff's apprehension as well as the remote control in question and other documents which Defendant alleged proved that the remote belonged to Wal-Mart. After Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions and sought to strike the Defendant's Answer on the basis of spoliation of evidence, the case settled for a  confidential amount .  [9/06]

Flounnory v. Wal-Mart (U.S. District Court - N.D.Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit against this National Retailer for False Imprisonment.  Plaintiff' had been shopping in Defendant's store  when she was stopped, detained for half an hour and accused of shoplifting. Wal-Mart alleged that Plaintiff had an item listed on her store receipt which was not in her possession. The Plaintiff was finally released after it was determined that the "stroller" on her receipt referenced a piece of clothing she had actually purchased and did not reference a baby carriage as Defendant had "assumed".    The case settled for a five figure confidential amount shortly after suit was filed.  [6/06]

Gilbert v. Malone, et al (Circuit Court of Dekalb County,  Tennessee) Firm represented Defendants in motor vehicle accident which occurred in Smithville, Tennessee. Defendants admitted liability in case where Defendant pulled from a side road into the path of the Plaintiff, who sustained $17,559.35 in special damages. During trial, Plaintiff's credibility was greatly called into question, which ultimately resulted in a verdict of only $6,947, which was almost 1/3 of the amount of the special damages alone. [4/06]

Wilkinson v. Darlington School  (Settled Prior to Suit)  Firm represented Plaintiff whose son was tragically killed during a school trip to the Gulf of Mexico. The evidence revealed that two employees of the school transported eight Darlington Students to Suwannee, Florida for an annual trip during the School's Spring Break. However, according to the Plaintiff's expert, the leaders failed to follow the most basic safety procedures and allowed Plaintiff's 14 year old son, who was in a canoe, become separated from the group, who last saw Plaintiff's son over a mile back and headed out toward sea. While the remainder of the group had to be rescued by a Coast Guard helicopter, the Plaintiff's son was not located until two days later and was found floating several miles in the Gulf, having died of hypothermia. The group leaders had no way to communicate with anyone on shore, except for a cellular telephone, which was inoperable in this remote area. The case settled for a confidential  seven figure amount during mediation conducted prior to suit. [1/06]

Eichelberger v. Kroger  (Settled Prior to Suit) Firm represented Plaintiff who was detained by an Off-Duty Police Officer (who had been hired by Kroger) as he was leaving Defedant's Supermarket and accused of shoplifting. During the stop, it is undisputed that the Officer displayed a concealed gun to Plaintiff in order to intimidate him. Plaintiff alleged he was stopped because he was Shopping While Black. The officer accused Plaintiff of stuffing an air freshener in his shorts and  questioned him in the store office for between 10-20 minutes.  Plaintiff was attending Harvard College at the time of the incident  earning an MBA. The case settled for $20,000 prior to suit. [1/06]

Patterson v. Utica National (Superior Court of Gilmer County) Firm represented Utica National in Bad Faith claim filed by Peterson, who had been accused of abusing students while teaching in a special education class. Utica had provided a defense for the insured school district in a suit filed by several students against Plaintiff and his School District, but had refused to provide a defense for the Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff had to hire an attorney at his own expense to represent him in the civil suit. Firm moved for, and was awarded Summary Judgment on the basis that there was no coverage for Plaintiff under the policy for the intentional acts which he was accused of performing while teaching in the covered district. The Superior Court Judge awarded Summary Judgment to Utica based upon several exclusions contained in the Utica Policy [12/05]

Harris v. The Walker School (State Court of Cobb County) Firm represented The Walker School, a private K-12 School in Marietta against a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff who was visiting The Walker School to attend a basketball game where Plaintiff's daughter was participating. While walking down the steps in Defendant's gymnasium, her foot got caught in a slot which was intended to hold a handrail, which had been inadvertently left uninstalled prior to the start of the game.  Plaintiff sustained an injury to her leg, arm and lower back, sustaining an annular tear with stenosis at L4-5.  The Walker School moved for Summary Judgment based upon the failure of the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant had superior knowledge of the defective step. The Court granted The Walker School's Summary Judgment based on the absence of a showing of superior knowledge by the Defendant, as well as Plaintiff's failure to exercise due care in descending the steps. [11/05]

Atlanta Casualty v. Hamilton (Crisp County Superior Court)  Firm represented Atlanta Casualty in this Declaratory Judgment Action based on the non-permissive driver exclusion contained in its policy. The insured vehicle was being driven by Defendant Wassajjah Lawrence when she struck two pedestrians crossing the street in Cordele, Georgia. Atlanta Casualty's insured, Hamilton, testified that she had explicitly instructed Lawrence not to drive her vehicle on the date of the accident. Atlanta Casualty moved for Summary Judgment on the non-permissive driver exclusion, which was granted by the Court which ultimately ruled that no coverage existed under the policy, and that Atlanta Casualty was not required to defend any of the individuals who had been sued in two separate lawsuits by the two pedestrians. [11/05]

Ransom v. Wal-Mart  (U.S.D.C. Northern District of Georgia) Firm  represented Plaintiff who filed suit against this National Retailer for False Imprisonment.  Plaintiff' had been shopping in Defendant's store for Father's Day when she was stopped, detained for half an hour and accused of shoplifting. Plaintiff was finally released after it was determined that her daughter and niece had been followed and thought to have shoplifted instead of Plaintiff.  Plaintiff was never arrested.  The case settled for $65,000 during Court Ordered mediation. [11/05]

One Beacon Insurance Company v. Milbourne (U.S.D.C. Northern District of Georgia) Firm represented One Beacon in a RICO action against a former claims representative with One Beacon who embezzled in excess of $154,000 from her employer by devising a scheme to have fraudulent worker's compensation payments made to her co-conspirator, Taylor, who was falsely posing as a physician treating claimants insured by One Beacon. The District Court found for One Beacon and awarded not only the $154,000 against Milbourne and Taylor, but also trebled the damages under Georgia and Federal RICO laws and also awarded Plaintiff Attorney's Fees under the statutes. On October 20, 2005 the Court entered final Judgment of $499,122.75 against the Defendants. [10/05]

Dowland v. Fowler Properties (Cherokee County State Court) Firm represented Fowler Properties in slip and fall case at a Waffle House store in Woodstock, Georgia.  Plaintiff was leaving the Waffle House when she slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of the store. Plaintiff underwent a cervical discectomy and was advised to undergo a second procedure prior to trial. Plaintiff incurred in excess of $54,000 in medical expenses and had remained out of work for over three years due to her injuries. At trial, Defendant argued that Plaintiff had testified falsely about prior injuries in her discovery responses, and that the Plaintiff had failed to exercise due care for her own safety when she stepped into an icy parking lot caring a large purse, large soda and box of frozen meat. After 5 days of trial, including two days of jury deliberations, a verdict was returned for Fowler Properties.  [10/05]

Smith v.  Wal-Mart (U.S.D.C. Northern District of Florida) Firm represented Plaintiff who had been wrongfully detained by Defendant's employees in it's parking lot and accused of shoplifting. Store then banned Plaintiff from ever returning to store. Store eventually conceded that it had wrongfully accused and detained Plaintiff and his 12 year old son and settled case for confidential five figure sum shortly after suit was filed. [10/05]

GEICO v. Progressive (Ga. Ct. App. Case No. A05A1638) Firm represented GEICO in a Declaratory Judgment Action in which Jury found that GEICO owed no coverage due to a violation of the Fraud and Misrepresentation exclusion of the policy.  Following a jury trial in this declaratory judgment action. Progressive filed a Motion for New Trial, which was granted after Court found that the original trial judge (who retired immediately after the trial) erred in allowing a defective jury form to be used by the jury . On Appeal, the Court of Appeals Reversed, finding that the Verdict form was not defective, and further found that contrary to Progressive's contention, GEICO met all conditions precedent in bringing the Declaratory Judgment Action in the first place. The Court of Appeals finally found that the Trial Court did not err in denying Progressive's Motion For Directed Verdict at the close of evidence. [10/5]

Hamvas v. St. Paul Fire Ins. Co.  (U.S.D.C. Northern District Georgia) Firm represented St. Paul in a  case involving a fire at a doctor's office. This doctor claimed in excess of $1,000,000 in damages for damage to property and business interruption. St. Paul defended the case based on violations of the fraud and concealment clause of the St. Paul Policy. Prior to the end of discovery and after confronting Plaintiff with evidence of the misrepresentations, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice and without payment by St. Paul. [9/05]

Jones v. Ward Trucking (Dekalb County State Court) Firm represented Plaintiffs who were involved in multiple vehicle auto accident with Defendant Trucking Company. Defendants contended prior to suit and after suit was filed that they had an expert witness who would place fault  for the accident with other drivers. However, at the time of trial, it was discovered that no such expert ever existed.  The Plaintiffs, which included a husband, wife and five week old child, had sustained a skull fracture, fractured arm and torn rotator cuff between them. Medical expenses totaled $17,000.   After a jury had been selected, the case settled for $180,000 on the first day of trial.  [8/05]

MetLife v. Nunez (Hall County Superior Court) Firm represented MetLife in a Declaratory Judgment Action. MetLife issued a policy to the parents of one of the Defendants in this action, which ostensibly insured the son of the insureds. While the insureds' son was returning to college, he alleges that his vehicle was stolen and later involved in a motor vehicle accident which seriously injured four people. The individual who took the vehicle from the son, said he had permission to drive the insured vehicle when he was involved in the motor vehicle accident. MetLife contended that under either scenario there was no coverage due to the fact that either the insureds' son told MetLife the truth, and the driver did not have permission to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, or the driver told the truth, and as such, MetLife's insured son had violated the Fraud and Misrepresentation exclusion of the policy, thereby voiding coverage. Judgment was finally entered in favor of MetLife finding that no coverage existed under either scenario under the MetLife Policy. [8/05]

Douglas v. Checker's (Dekalb County State Court) Firm represented Checker's Drive-In during this litigation which resulted from an injury sustained by a small child who was struck by a sign which fell from an area above the service window. Checker's denied liability on the basis that there was no proof it had done anything to cause the sign to fall. Checker's moved for Summary Judgment at the close of discovery. Prior to the time that Plaintiff had to respond to Checker's Motion for Summary Judgment, it dismissed the lawsuit and did not re-file this action within six months. [6/05]

Isidore v. Home Depot (U.S.D.C. Middle District Florida)  Firm represented Plaintiff who filed suit against this National Retailer for False Imprisonment and False Arrest. Plaintiff's employer had purchased a potted plant in Defendant's landscaping department which had been left at the store with instructions for Plaintiff to pick up same and transport to employer's residence where Plaintiff was to plant it in his employer's front yard. However, when Plaintiff arrived to pick up plant, Plaintiff was detained and assaulted by Defendant's employees, who eventually called the police and had Plaintiff arrested. The State's Attorney eventually refused to prosecute Plaintiff on the criminal charges, even though  the Defendant urged continued prosecution, notwithstanding that Defendant knew that Plaintiff's employer had already paid for the plant and had left instructions on the sales invoice taped to the plant that the Plaintiff would be picking up the plant for her. Although there were surveillance cameras surrounding the entrance to the store, Defendant contended that no video of the beating existed. The case settled during Court ordered mediation for a confidential six figure amount. [6/05]

Graham v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (U.S.D.C. Northern District Georgia) Firm represented Plaintiff whose home was destroyed by fire in North Carolina. Defendant denied claim on basis of Arson and Fraud by Plaintiff.  However, Plaintiff  could account for whereabouts in Atlanta during the time when the fire was taking place in North Carolina.  Case was settled for a six figure amount in excess of  the insurance policy limits prior to the expiration of discovery. [5/05]

Peterson v. Ball (Fulton County Superior Court)  Firm represented Peterson in DUI case. Peterson was entering intersection when Defendant ran a stop light and struck Plaintiff at high rate of speed. Peterson spent three days in hospital and incurred medical expenses of  approximately $8,000.  This incident was Defendant's third DUI charge. Defendant's insurer offered to pay limits of $100,000 (which Plaintiff refused to accept) after suit filed and after expiration of Holt demand by Plaintiff. During second day of trial, Defendant's insurer settled for $160,000 which was in excess of policy limits. (2/05)

Atlanta Casualty v. West (Cherokee County Superior Court). Firm represented Atlanta Casualty and filed Declaratory Judgment action seeking a declaration of non-coverage as a result of  the Named Driver exclusion contained in the Atlanta Casualty policy. The policy was taken out by Simpson who completed the application and earned a discount on the policy by excluding her sixteen year old son as an insured driver under the policy. Two months after the policy became effective, Simpson's sixteen year old son was operating the family vehicle on a county highway when he struck two other teenage boys who were operating "four-wheelers" off-road vehicles, severely injuring them.  The parents of the two boys filed suit against Simpson and his parents. Atlanta Casualty immediately filed this Declaratory Judgment seeking a stay of the underlying tort suit until the coverage issue was resolved. After deposing its insureds, Atlanta Casualty filed for Summary Judgment in the Declaratory Judgment action contending no coverage existed due to the Named Driver exclusion in its policy. The trial court granted Summary Judgment relying on prior decisions in Atlanta Cas. v. Cash, 209 Ga. App. 123 (1993) and Ison v. State Farm, 230 Ga. App. 554 (1998) which had previously upheld the propriety of Named Driver exclusions in policies similar to that issued to the Simpsons. [11/04]

Continental Pet Technologies v. Palacias (269 Ga. App. 561) Firm represented worker on appeal who had been injured on the job with Continental for whom she had been employed  as a janitor for 5 years. Continental denied coverage solely because of Palacias's status as an illegal alien. Continental argued on appeal that under the Pre-emption doctrine Palacias was barred from recovering benefits because federal law precluded the employment of illegal aliens. Continental contended that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)   pre-empted any worker's compensation claim filed by an undocumented employee. In a rare Full Court Opinion, the twelve justices of the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed and found in a case of first impression in this state, that the Georgia Worker's Compensation Act's definition of "person in the service of another" was broad enough to include illegal aliens and was not pre-empted by Federal law. The Court found that in passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) Congress did not specifically intend to pre-empt any state's worker's compensation statute or preclude illegal aliens from receiving benefits under those state statutes. The Court relied upon cases cited by Palacias decided by other states in finding no conflict between the federal and state statutes. The Georgia Supreme Court and later, United States Supreme Court, refused to overturn the Court of Appeals decision.  [9/04]

McRae v. White (269 Ga. App. 455)  Firm represented Defendant who had injured Plaintiff who was a passenger in his truck when she was ejected from his vehicle which flipped while Defendant was driving. Plaintiff alleges she served Defendant by leaving a copy of  the lawsuit with a female who resided with Defendant.  Defendant testified in an affidavit that no female resided at location where he was alleged to have been served.  Trial Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that Defendant's Affidavit disproving Plaintiff's Affidavit of Service was uncontroverted by Plaintiff, thereby entitling Defendant to Dismissal of his action. [9/04]

GEICO v. Cordova (Gwinnett County Superior Court). Firm represented GEICO and filed Declaratory Judgment action seeking a declaration of non-coverage as a result of  Misrepresentation & Fraud in the policy.  Policy had been obtained from GEICO using stolen identity of individual who resided in N.C. and paid for by credit card belonging to another individual, also from N.C. Before GEICO ascertained that the policy was obtained illegally, the insured vehicle was involved in accident which left one of the occupants of the other vehicle dead and the driver of the other vehicle in a coma with medical bills which exceeded $165,000. The driver of the GEICO vehicle also stole the identity of his brother during the accident investigation. GEICO contended that it was not responsible for coverage under its policy as a result of  Fraud and Misrepresentations which had been made to GEICO during its investigation into this claim. After a four day trial and 8 hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of non-coverage as a result of the policy exclusion. [8/04]

Peterson v. Utica (Fannin County). Plaintiff filed suit seeking coverage under the Utica policy for Attorneys Fees which he incurred during a civil suit brought against him by former students which included charges of molestation while he was employed by Fannin County Schools.  Court ruled that coverage did not exist under the Utica Policy as a result of the Intentional Acts and Criminal Acts Exclusions contained in the Utica Policy. [8/04]

McClane v. Bezera (Gwinnett County State Court). Firm represented Defendant who had been sued by Plaintiff  as a result of a collision in an intersection in Alpharetta. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant had run a red light. Case was in Default upon receipt by the firm. Plaintiff's special damages totaled $18,267.39. At trial, the Plaintiff and a medical doctor who was an eyewitness to the accident  and testified on behalf of the Plaintiff,  both stated that the Plaintiff had the green light and that Defendant's light was red. Plaintiff also introduced testimony by Alpharetta Police officer that his investigation and physical evidence, including skid marks left by Defendant's vehicle, lead him to conclude that Defendant ran the red light. Officer testified that he cited the Defendant for failure to obey traffic device, and Plaintiff introduced a certified copy of Defendant's guilty plea to that traffic citation.  Upon cross examination by the defense, the police officer admitted that he had made several errors in his investigation, including referring to Defendant's 1992 Toyota Corolla as a "truck" and testifying that the accident occurred during "rush hour" when it actually occurred at 6:30 on a Sunday evening. Defense Counsel cross examined the Police Officer's about his testimony that he obtained Defendant's version of the accident, when the evidence showed that the Defendant spoke Portuguese and spoke no English.  By the end of his cross examination, the police officer changed his testimony and conceded that the accident could have occurred as the Defendant alleged, and that the Plaintiff could have just as easily run the red light as the Defendant. The jury returned a verdict for Defendant, stating that part of the reason for their decision was that it appeared to them that the police officer was prejudiced against the Defendant, due to his inability to speak English, and based his decision to cite Defendant for the accident on this fact alone. [5/04]

McCullough v. ANPAC  (Clayton County Superior Court) The Plaintiff, a Dentist, had her business property destroyed by fire.  The property was insured by American National Property & Casualty. The Plaintiff's estimate to rebuild the structure was 58% greater than the estimate obtained by ANPAC. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's personal property claim contained items which others testified were owned by them. ANPAC had offered to settle the claim for $75,000. At trial, jury returned a verdict in the amount of $127,000. ANPAC filed Motion for New Trial based on improper strikes of jurors by the Plaintiff, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky. ANPAC also filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. The Court granted ANPAC's Motion for New Trial as well as ANPAC's JNOV Motion and ordered a new trial unless Plaintiff accepted a verdict in the amount of $51,000. Plaintiff eventually accepted the $51,000, which was $76,000 less than the amount she claimed at trial as damages which she sustained in the fire.  [5/04]

Eller, et al  v. Moore (Henry County State Court) The Defendant  crossed over the center line at an intersection and struck the Plaintiff's head-on as they were sitting at the intersection waiting to turn left. The investigating officer testified the Defendant had been reading a book while driving. Defendant plead guilty to failure to maintain lane. The Plaintiffs  were seriously injured and incurred medical specials of $3,555 for Mr. Eller and  $9,318 for Mrs. Eller -  who  missed 5 weeks of work.  Following the Plaintiffs' cross examination, the Judge called a recess and urged Plaintiff's Counsel to try to settle the case before it was submitted to the jury due to Plaintiffs poor credibility at trial.  The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $893 for Mr. Eller and $5,018 for Mrs.  Eller. The verdict represented less than half of what Defendant had offered at mediation and one sixth of the Plaintiffs' last demand prior to trial. [2/04]

Burns v. Reese, (Fulton County State Court) The Plaintiff was struck by Defendant's vehicle while a pedestrian and was seriously injured. Firm moved for Summary Judgment based on the Plaintiff's assumption of the risk and that the Plaintiff's negligence was greater than the Defendant's as a matter of law. Defendant was granted Summary Judgment. No appeal was taken from Order granting Summary Judgment. [1/04]

Integon v. Derrick Lipscomb (Hall County Superior Court) Firm represented Integon who filed a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking to void coverage as a result of  Misrepresentations in the Application. Integon's insured obtained a policy using his deceased brother's identity. Lipscomb was subsequently involved in an accident with a vehicle injuring the driver and four  passengers. After obtaining a stay of the underlying tort suit against Lipscomb by the occupants in the other vehicle, Integon successfully moved for Summary Judgment on the basis that Integon's named insured, Derrick Lipscomb,  lacked capacity to enter into a contract with Integon since the actual Derrick Lipscomb had died prior to the contract being issued by Integon and could not legally enter into a contract of insurance with Integon. The case was not appealed following the Court's ruling.   [12/03]

McBerry v. Wal-Mart Stores (United States District Court - N.D. Ga.) Firm represented McBerry who was injured when she slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store in Griffin, Ga. McBerry was 6 months pregnant when she fell on Edge Shaving Gel which had been sprayed all over the floor and shelves at least two hours previously. Plaintiff was able to demonstrate the amount of time that the Edge Gel had been present since the Gel was dry and flaky when EMT's arrived to transport Plaintiff to the hospital and several tests indicated that  a minimum of two hours was required for Edge Gel to reach the same  state of consistency which Plaintiff observed on the floor and on her clothes while laying on the floor. The Plaintiff sustained a fractured coccyx, which had to be surgically removed. Plaintiff also delivered her child via caesarean section, which her Orthopedist attributed to her fracture coccyx pressing against her cervix during delivery. Her  two prior children were born via vaginal delivery. The Plaintiff incurred $33,537.96 in medical expenses and $43,920 in lost wages. The case was settled pursuant to a confidential agreement following a pre-trial conference with the Judge, who strongly suggested that Wal-Mart resolve  the case. [10/03]

Misty Cream Ice Cream v. Clarendon National Ins. Co. (Fulton County Superior Court). The Plaintiff dismissed this case following mediation after the neutral  encouraged same following the presentation of strong evidence that the insured had violated the Concealment and Misrepresentation Clause of this special  trucking policy.  Insurer produced evidence of 22 previous insurance claims involving the owner's of the Plaintiff business. The insurer also retained the services of a hand writing expert to prove that one of the principals of the company had assumed the identity of a deceased brother in filings in another legal action. [8/03]

Byrd v. Atlanta Casualty (U.S.D.C. M.D.Ga.) Firm represented Atlanta Casualty in Bad Faith litigation for denial of claim for theft of vehicle. Insured alleged that vehicle had been stolen while he was on out of state trip with friends. Vehicle had been recovered by police after high speed chase prior to vehicle being recovered. Atlanta Casualty moved for Summary Judgment on basis of insured's violation of Fraud and Concealment clause of Atlanta Casualty policy. Court found as a matter of law that the insured had made false statements to Atlanta Casualty in the pursuit of his claim and granted Summary Judgment to Atlanta Casualty. There was no appeal of the Court's ruling. [7/03].

Jackson v. Rodriguez (Gwinnett County State Court). Defendant's Motion To Dismiss was granted after it was proven that the Plaintiff had failed to properly serve the Defendant prior to the expiration of the Statutes of Limitation. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff's Counsel failed to show due diligence in locating and serving the Defendant. No Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff  following the Dismissal.  [5/03]

Toyota v. Heyward Allen Motor Co.  (11th  Court of Appeals). Summary Judgment to Toyota was reversed after it was shown that Toyota had failed to comply with a notice provision contained in its dealership agreement with Athens based auto dealer Heyward Allen Toyota in this wrongful death action.  [7/03]

Mahdi v. Butler (Dekalb Superior Court)  Defendant's Motion To Dismiss was granted after it was proven that the Plaintiff had failed to properly serve the Defendant prior to the expiration of the Statutes of Limitation. Defendant testified at hearing that he had lived at same address for 30 years and that the Plaintiff had relied on the incorrect address which the investigating officer had listed in the accident report. No Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff  following the Dismissal. [8/03]

Golden v. Harper  (Cherokee State Court) Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her Complaint after Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment showing that Plaintiff had failed to sue the correct party in this litigation. The Plaintiff sued to owner of the vehicle, but failed to sue the actual driver after apparently making a mistake in reviewing the accident report. The expiration of the Statute of Limitation prevented the Plaintiff from adding the driver of the Defendant's vehicle to the existing litigation or commencing new litigation against him. The Defendant testified that he had not negligently entrusted his automobile to the driver and Plaintiff had no evidence to the contrary. No Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff  following the Dismissal. [4/03]

Harvey Transport Logistics v. Canal  Ins. Co.   Insurer denied refrigerated cargo claim as a result of common carrier policy  which required tractor of vehicle to remain attached to refrigerated trailer at all times while cargo was inside trailer. HTL  left refrigerated trailer at cold storage terminal to be loaded while it hauled another load in a different trailer. When frozen food arrived at cold storage facility in Florida, temperature had risen to unacceptable level. Insurer reversed earlier denial of claim when confronted with Refrigerated Cargo Endorsement purchased by HTL, whose terms did not require refrigerated trailer to remain attached to tractor as original policy terms had dictated. [7/03]

Thompson v.  DeKalb County (U.S. District Court - N.D. Ga.) Firm represented Plaintiff  in 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action against  County Sheriff's Department. 16 year old Plaintiff  was involved in a shoving match at high school football game. 3 Deputies intervened and while Plaintiff was lying face down on ground, handcuffed, complying, not resisting arrest and another deputy had knee in Plaintiff's back, senior ranking deputy struck Plaintiff on foot with ASP baton fracturing 4 bones after losing his temper. Jury deadlocked 7-1 for Plaintiff after 7 day trial.  County resolved case with Plaintiff and parents following the declaration of a mistrial in a confidential settlement.  [1/03]

Watson  v.  Veterinary Clinic (Dougherty Superior Court) Firm represented horse breeder  in Veterinary Malpractice suit. Defendant Veterinarian had been hired to determine if breeder's $56,000 multiple show winning 2 year old horse was pregnant. While performing rectal palpation, Defendant caused rectal tear, but failed to advise breeder of tear and failed to advise breeder to seek immediate treatment at equine surgical facility or veterinary medical school. Three days after causing rectal tear, breeder's horse began to act colicky and breeder transported mare to equine surgical facility 2 hours away where tear was immediately diagnosed and peritonitis had set in. After emergency colostomy, one month of extensive treatment and $22,000 in medical expenses, the mare finally died. Post mortem autopsy clearly revealed rectal tear and extensive peritonitis in abdominal cavity. There was extensive evidence Defendant Veterinarian covered up his negligence. Breeder's Veterinary Expert cited numerous lapses by Defendant Veterinarian resulting in the mare's demise. Breeder sought damages of $56,000 for value of mare, $22,000 in medical expenses, future lost profits from foals (which breeder's Equine Sales Expert calculated in excess of  $200,000) and punitive damages. Following pre-trial conference, Defendant settled for $250,000, citing the large amount of provable damages in addition to the punitive damages claim.  The final outcome remains as the highest veterinary malpractice settlement in Georgia to date, according to Defendant's Insurer (underwriter of  most  veterinary malpractice insurance  in Georgia). [6/03]

Savage v. St. Paul  (255 Ga. App. 648 - 2002)  Firm represented St. Paul in this theft claim. The insured medical doctor, Savage,  (d/b/a Susan L. Savage, M.D.) formed a  practice with a dentist who treated patients in  Savage's offices. The two practiced under the name, Family Medical.  Several months after forming Family Medical, Savage reported that $90,000 worth of dental equipment was stolen from her practice, Family Medical. The insured doctor did not report the theft to St. Paul until 6 weeks after the theft. After conducting an Examination Under Oath, the claim was denied on the basis that Family Medical, the owner of the equipment,  was not the same entity as the named insured, Susan L. Savage, M.D.  Savage filed suit and ultimately Summary Judgment was granted to St. Paul. The Court of  Appeals affirmed, holding that the same person, Savage, founded two separate Corporations, although she only obtained insurance for one of those corporations, Susan L. Savage, M.D. and not Family Medical. As such, there was no policy in effect to provide coverage for the entity which actually owned the stolen equipment, Family Medical.

Bailey v. Bailey (252 Ga. App. 175 - 2001) Firm represented UM carrier in this action filed in Dekalb State Court.  The Plaintiff Greg Bailey used a private process server who served "Maurice Smith" at the address listed for Defendant Ramon Bailey, believing that Maurice Smith was an alias of Ramon Bailey.  The uninsured motorist carrier moved to dismiss the lawsuit, due to insufficient service of process on the defendants, which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to properly serve the Defendant within the applicable statutes of limitation, thereby barring the claim against not only the defendants,  but against the UM Carrier as well.

AXA v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins., (251 Ga. App. 543 - 2001) Firm represented AXA in wrongful death action brought by estate of deceased driver and fetus, as well as a declaratory judgment action brought by Empire. AXA and Empire jointly mediated the wrongful death actions resulting from the accident and settled them for $1.5 million. Each insurer agreed to pay $750,000 and to litigate their coverage dispute in Empire's pending declaratory judgment action. Each agreed that the prevailing party would be reimbursed $250,000 by the other party. The trial Court denied AXA's Motion for Ssummary Judgment,  concluding that questions of fact remained regarding whether, at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had the lessor's permission to drive the vehicle and whether he was acting in the scope of his employment. The Jury answered "Yes" to both questions and the Court entered Judgment against AXA.  AXA appealed contending that the loss did not fall within the business use exclusion of Empire's Non-Trucking Use policy. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the trial court's ruling.The Court of Appeals found that Empire provided primary coverage for it's insured tractor but excluded coverage while the tractor was "used in the business of" AXA's lessee. The lessee's  trucker's policy from AXA  provided primary coverage for the leased tractor while "used exclusively in  the lessee's business as a trucker otherwise it provided excess coverage for the leased tractor. Applying the plain meaning of the terms, the Court of Appeals found that the two policies dovetailed with AXA providing primary coverage for the loss if the driver was using the tractor in the lessee's business as a "trucker," while Empire's provides primary coverage if the driver was not using the tractor in furtherance of the lessee's business. The decision resulted in a shift of $500,000 in coverage, reversing AXA's payment of $250,000 to Empire into a $250,000 payment from Empire to AXA.