|
News about Lawyers
News about Firm Litigation
NEWS ABOUT VANDEVEER GARZIA LAWYERS
JAMES RENO AND ALICIA SIEFER LaBEAU WIN TRIAL IN MACOMB CIRCUIT COURT FOR CLIENT ARISING OUT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT
James Reno and Alicia Siefer LaBeau recently received a defense verdict of
“No Cause of Action” in an automobile negligence trial in Macomb County Circuit
Court.
Plaintiff, a motorcyclist, had alleged that the Defendant
pulled out in front of him and caused Plaintiff to suddenly slam on his brakes
and strike the back of Defendant’s trailer. As a result of the accident,
Plaintiff sustained a lisfranc fracture (middle foot injury), a fractured
shoulder blade and several lacerations and abrasions. Plaintiff claimed
that the accident was the Defendant’s fault and also claimed that his injuries
resulted in a permanent and serious disfigurement and serious impairment
of an important body function.
James and Alicia presented evidence and testimony from the
Defendant driver and a passenger in the Defendant’s vehicle. They also
relied on the investigating police officer and an eyewitness who both testified
our client did not pull out in front of the Plaintiff, but rather that
Plaintiff’s own failure to observe traffic conditions was the cause of his
injuries.
After hearing three days worth of testimony and evidence,
the jury deliberated for just over an hour before finding that our client was
not at fault.
-----
JIM THOME WINS TRIAL FOR FIRM CLIENT ON
INSURANCE COVERAGE MATTER INVOLVING CASS TECH HIGH SCHOOL
Cass Technical High School is a
prestigious and historic college preparatory school located in Detroit. The Detroit Public Schools decided to build a
new Cass Tech and demolish a number of buildings associated with the old school. The Detroit Public Schools delegated the
supervision of the construction and demolition activities to a group of
contractors, architects, engineers, and advisors known as the Detroit Public
Schools Program Manager Team. The DPSPMT
hired a Detroit contractor, Jenkins Construction, to oversee some of the
work. While conducting a pre-demolition
inspection of one of the Cass Tech buildings, Richard Beavers, an employee of
Jenkins, sustained a serious injury. Beavers
filed suit to recover damages against certain members of the DPSPMT in the
Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit. The
DPSPMT and its insurance company then filed suit against Jenkins Construction’s
insurance company, Valley Forge Insurance Company. They claimed that Valley Forge should defend
the DPSPMT members in the Wayne County Circuit Court case and pay any damages
awarded to Beavers in that case.
The declaratory judgment action with
regard to insurance coverage was tried in the U. S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. After
considering the testimony of witnesses and reviewing exhibits, the judge in the
U.S. District Court case issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
March 28, 2011. He decided the case in
favor of Valley Forge indicating that Valley Forge owed no insurance coverage
in the Wayne County case filed by Beavers.
This outcome was a complete victory for the firm’s client, Valley Forge. Jim Thome represented Valley Forge in the
federal court case. Detroit Public Schools, Program Management Team and Lexington Insurance
Company -vs- Valley Forge Insurance Company, U. S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:09-cv-11915
-----
TOM PETERS, JIM THOME,
WILLIAM KIRIAZIS, DANIEL STEELE,
JOHN LYNCH AND DAVID TIMMIS NAMED
“SUPER LAWYERS” AGAIN
William
Kiriazis (Construction Litigation), James
Thome (Commercial Litigation) and David
Timmis (Commercial Litigation) will be included in the upcoming SUPER
LAWYERS BUSINESS EDITION, a national publication honoring
attorneys who have been selected by their peers for demonstrating a high level
of skill and expertise in their area of practice.
The following attorneys were
recognized in the most recent edition of Michigan Super Lawyers: Daniel
Steele (General Litigation); John
Lynch (Alternative Dispute Resolution); Donald
Brownell (Insurance Litigation); and Thomas
Peters (Insurance Litigation). Additionally, Anthony
Kostello (Construction Litigation) and Timothy
Connaughton (General Litigation) were listed as “Rising
Stars”, a similar recognition for excellence demonstrated by attorneys
under the age of 40 years old.
-----
NICOLAS VESPRINI NAMED SHAREHOLDER OF THE FIRM
The firm is proud to announce that Nicolas Vesprini has been named a shareholder of the firm in 2011. Congratulations to Nico.
------
TOM PETERS, JIM THOME,
WILLIAM KIRIAZIS, DANIEL STEELE,
JOHN LYNCH AND DAVID TIMMIS NAMED
“SUPER LAWYERS” 2010
Super Lawyers is a service
conducted by the publishers of Law & Politics. Super Lawyers
identifies the top 5 percent of attorneys in the state as chosen by their peers
and through the independent research of Law & Politics.
Law & Politics mailed more than
30,000 ballots to active attorneys in Michigan recently asking those attorneys
to nominate the best lawyers that they have personally observed. Each
candidate who was nominated was then researched and evaluated. Peer
recognition and personal achievement were primary factors in this
process. Candidates were then evaluated again by a blue ribbon panel of
preeminent peers in their practice areas. An attorney who was finally
selected in this process was then designated a “Super Lawyer”. No more
than 5 percent of Michigan attorneys were selected for this honor.
Thomas M. Peters was designated a Super Lawyer in the
practice area of Personal Injury Defense. James K. Thome was designated a Super Lawyer for
Construction Litigation. William L. Kiriazis was
designated for Construction litigation as well. Daniel
P. Steele, John J. Lynch and David B. Timmis were named
Super Lawyers for General Litigation.
Tom’s areas of
practice include Transportation, Trucking and Highway Liability, Alternate
Dispute Resolution and Insurance Coverage and Indemnity Law.
Along with Construction Law and Litigation,
Jim also concentrates his practice in the areas of Intellectual
Property and Trademark Litigation and Employment Law and Litigation.
Bill's areas include Construction Law and Litigation, Aviation Law and Litigation, Design
Professional Representation and Product Liability.
Dan focuses on Motor Vehicle Law and Litigation, Employment Law and Litigation, Construction Law and Litigation, Aviation
Law and Litigation, and Product Liability.
John specializes in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Construction Law, Professional Liability, Governmental and Mass Transit Liability and Litigation.
Dave practices in the areas of Motor Vehicle Law and Litigation, Business and Commercial Litigation, Employment Law and Litigation, and Product Liability
Timothy Connaughton and Anthony Kostello have again been named Rising Stars for 2010.
-----
DEFENSE
VERDICT IN THIRD PARTY AUTO NEGLIGENCE CASE
IN
SANILAC COUNTY
A
Sanilac County jury recently returned a verdict of “No Cause of Action,” in
favor of Nicolas Vesprini’s client, finding Plaintiff did not suffer a serious
impairment of a body function. Mr.
Vesprini’s client admitted liability for a rear-end automobile accident, from
which Plaintiff alleged to have suffered multiple injuries including migraines,
neck and back pain, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Plaintiff
testified that due to her alleged injuries she was restricted in her work
activities and unable to perform various day-to-day tasks. Nico presented evidence that there
was a lack of objective findings to correlate to Plaintiff’s ongoing complaints
of pain. Further, he presented the
testimony of a neuropsychologist, who opined that Plaintiff’s alleged cognitive
and emotional injuries did not affect Plaintiff’s general ability to lead her
normal life.
At
the conclusion of trial, the jury agreed with Defendant, finding that Plaintiff
did not suffer a serious impairment of a body function.
-----
“NO CAUSE” DEFENSE VERDICT RETURNED IN MACOMB COUNTY
DOG BITE CASE
Nicolas Vesprini recently received a defense verdict
at the conclusion of a trial in Macomb County Circuit Court based upon a
finding that his client was not negligent, and therefore not liable for the dog
bite injury suffered by Plaintiff. Mr.
Vesprini’s client was the owner/landlord of the home where the bite
occurred. Plaintiff, a contractor, alleged
that he went to the home at the request and direction of Defendant to complete
measurements for work to be performed to Defendant’s home.
Plaintiff alleged that while he was in the backyard,
he was bitten by a tenants’ dog, which Plaintiff alleged was vicious and
aggressive with a history of similar behavior.
Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant knew of the dog’s dangerous
propensities and failed to warn Plaintiff of the danger. Defendant argued that he did not have any
ownership or possessory interest in the dog, and had no control of the dog.
Further, Defendant denied that he told Plaintiff to
go to the home, testifying that no agreement for the work had been reached and
that he would not have instructed Plaintiff to go his tenants’ property without
Defendant or the tenants present. Defendant also denied Plaintiff’s contention
that he knew of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities.
Based upon the evidence presented, the jury agreed
with the Defendant, finding that he was not negligent.
-----
WILLIAM L. KIRIAZIS AND JAMES K. THOME DESIGNATED “SUPER LAWYERS” FOR
CORPORATE LITIGATION
Bill Kiriazis and Jim Thome have been named “Super Lawyers”
in the 2010 edition of Super Lawyers,
Corporate Counsel Edition. The Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition lists the “Top Attorneys in Corporate
Litigation” from throughout the United States. Super Lawyers is a service administered by Law and Politics that uses surveys to identify top attorneys in
particular legal practice areas.
Both Bill and Jim have been designated Super Lawyers for the state of Michigan in the practice area of
Construction Litigation.
Jim currently holds the title of firm President and Bill is
the Managing Partner of Vandeveer Garzia.
Among other practice areas, both Bill and Jim specialize in
Construction Law and Litigation.
-----
FAVORABLE
DEFENSE VERDICT IN OAKLAND COUNTY RECKLESS MISCONDUCT CASE
Nicolas
Vesprini and Lauren Wawrzyniak recently prevailed in trial, receiving a jury
verdict of “no cause of action,” finding that their client was not liable for
injuries Plaintiff suffered during a game of soccer. At trial, Plaintiff requested an award of
$90,000. Plaintiff alleged that while
playing in the soccer game, Defendant (a player on the opposing team) “sucker
punched” him, breaking his jaw.
Defendant maintained that Plaintiff’s broken jaw was the result of an
accidental elbow resulting from the players jostling for position to make a
play on the ball and was an ordinary part of the game of soccer. It is Mr. Vesprini’s and Ms. Wawrzyniak’s
opinion that the jury found that Plaintiff was not credible, both with regard
to the manner in which the incident occurred and the extent of his damages,
given that they were able to bring out inconsistencies in his testimony at
trial as compared to his testimony in deposition, testimony of other witnesses,
and his own medical records. Based upon
the evidence presented, the jury found that Defendant’s actions were not
reckless, and did not exceed the bounds of conduct or inherent risks associated
with the game of soccer.
-----
FAVORABLE VERDICT IN MACOMB COUNTY BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE
David Timmis and Timothy Connaughton
recently prevailed at trial on a breach of contract action in Macomb
County Circuit Court. The last offer by the Defendant prior to
trial was $17,500.00. The jury returned a verdict of
$240,000.00. Mr. Timmis and Mr. Connaughton are of the belief
that the jury was convinced that the representatives of the Defendant
were less than forthright in their testimony about meeting their
contractual obligations. This was the result of extensive
preparation that resulted in an effective cross-examination of each of
the Defendant’s witnesses, which in turn resulted in numerous
misstatements of fact and conflicting testimony from the
Defendant’s witnesses. An appeal is likely, but Mr. Timmis
and Mr. Connaughton remain confident that the Court of Appeals will
uphold the verdict, which was justified by the facts and circumstances
involved in this breach of contract action.
-----
FIRM WINS DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYMENT CASE
Shortly
after the firm’s client, a steel casting company, hired the plaintiff as a
Production Manager, he sustained an injury on the job. After the plaintiff recovered from his injury
and a physician indicated that he was able to return to work without
restrictions, the company terminated his employment for poor performance. The plaintiff then sued the firm’s client in
the Wayne County Circuit Court alleging violations of the Michigan Worker’s
Disability Compensation Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil
Rights Act.
After
depositions of the plaintiff and others, the firm brought a motion for summary
disposition asking the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was
no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff’s claims lacked
merit. The judge agreed and granted the
motion.
The
plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s decision in Leinninger v Delray Steel Casting, Wayne County Circuit Court case
number 06-628405-NZ. The defendants have
filed a motion to assess costs and attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff.
James K.
Thome supervised the case for the firm’s clients.
-----
TRIAL/RESOLUTION DURING JURY
DELIBERATIONS - IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY FILING OF
NOTICE OF NONPARTY FAULT
Mr. David Timmis recently tried a case on
behalf of a national product manufacturer and a national retailer in the County of Oakland. Despite a Case Evaluation that was
weighted significantly against the product manufacturer and the retailer,
the proofs presented at the time of trial convinced a co-defendant, the
manufacturer of the display on which the products were situated, to pay
all but a nominal portion of the resolution of the claim. The
agreement to resolve the claim occurred after the jury had commenced
deliberations.
The significance of the decision of the manufacturer of the display, to
pay all but a nominal portion of the settlement figure, is that it is
important to consider nonparties potentially at fault at the outset of
the litigation. The manufacturer of the display was not initially
named as party by Plaintiff’s counsel. Upon the filing of a Notice
of Nonparty Fault and as the result of the urging of Mr. Timmis, the
Plaintiff’s attorney amended the original Complaint to include the
display manufacturer as a Defendant. Without the display
manufacturer as a co-defendant, the product manufacturer and the retailer
would likely have been found responsible for the Plaintiff’s
injuries.
APPEAL/CONTRACTS/ALLEGED
CONDITION
PRECEDENT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
Mr. David
Timmis recently received a favorable ruling from the Michigan Court
of Appeals in a contract action involving the attempted purchase of a car
dealership. The Plaintiff signed an agreement with the Defendant
that would entitle the Plaintiff to a significant fee if the Plaintiff
was able to enter a Purchase Agreement with the owner of a car
dealership, then transfer his rights in the Purchase Agreement to the
Defendant. The Plaintiff entered into the Purchase Agreement with
the owner of the car dealership, then transferred his interest in the
Purchase Agreement to the Defendant. The subject agreement provided
as follows:
Meagher agrees to execute in escrow such
documents as are necessary to convey any and all interest, right and
title in the established LLC and its assets to LaFontaine. For and
in consideration of the conveyance of this interest, LaFontaine agrees to
make payment to Meagher the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00)
in cash at the closing of the dealership.
The
Defendant claimed that the phrase “at the closing”
constituted a “condition precedent”, and relied on this
position to avoid paying the Plaintiff, as the Defendant never closed on
the purchase of the dealership. The Court of Appeals disagreed
with the Defendant’s position and held that the “clear
language (of the agreement between Mr. Meagher and Mr. LaFontaine)
… conditions payment on Plaintiff’s conveyance of his
interest and not a closing of the purchase”. The Court
further commented that “courts are not inclined to construe
stipulations of a contract as conditions precedent unless compelled by
the language of the contract.” Click here
for text of unpublished opinion.
|
