Additional Representative Litigation Experience (Trial and Appellate)

Denise and Sherry Dunn vs. Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Charles Toomer, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division- Motor  Vehicle Accident- Defense Verdict

•    A jury verdict in favor of the Defendants was obtained in a motor vehicle accident case tried in Federal Court in Houston.  The case involved a collision between a tractor/trailer rig and a passenger car.  The passenger in Plaintiff’s vehicle claimed severe lumbar and cervical injuries and contended that she needed surgery on her lower back and neck as a result of the accident.  Plaintiffs pleaded for $2 million in damages. 

     The jury returned a verdict finding that neither driver was negligent.  The jury did not reach the damage issues and a verdict resulted in a take nothing judgment in favor of the Defendants.  It was established that the Plaintiff passenger had two prior lumbar surgeries and her present symptoms were related to these pre-existing conditions.  The jury was persuaded through the testimony of an independent witness and the investigating police officer that the accident was caused because Plaintiff changed lanes in front of the tractor/trailer and caused the accident.  The jury felt that Plaintiff’s failed to carry their burden of proof to show liability against the Defendants. 

Octavio Berlanga v. Terrier Transportation, Inc. and Three Flags/Ram Transportation Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division – Carmack Amendment Case – Defense Verdict

•     A defense verdict was obtained in an jury trial in Federal Court in Dallas on behalf of a motor carrier in a Carmack Amendment case. The action involved a claim for damage to a large shipment of household goods that were moved from Mexico City to Plano, Texas. The cargo was handled by a Mexican carrier between Mexico City and the border and by a U.S. carrier between Laredo and Plano.

     After a 4-day trial, the jury concluded that Plaintiffs failed to prove that their goods were delivered to the Defendants in good condition, either in Mexico City or in Laredo. While the jury found that the goods were delivered in a damaged condition, they concluded that the Defendants proved that the damage was caused by the acts and/or omissions of the Plaintiffs as the shipper and that all of the Defendants were free from negligence. Thus, the jury never reached the damage questions and the verdict resulted in a take nothing judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Bobby Hathcock v. Acme Truck Line, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division – Class Action – Leasing Violations – Summary Judgment

•     Final summary judgment was obtained on behalf of a major motor carrier in a class action suit brought by thousands of past and present owner operators.  The Plaintiffs alleged that their leases violated the Federal Truth and Leasing Regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. § 376.12.  Plaintiffs also claimed that illegal deductions were taken from their compensation due under the lease and challenged their dual status as both employees and independent contractors.  The potential damages that could have been awarded in favor of the class exceeded $5 million dollars and an unfavorable verdict would have been devastating to the company as well as the entire oilfield motor carrier industry in Texas and Louisiana. 

     Attorneys at Frock & Broussard, P.C. were able to convince Federal Judge David Hitner that Acme’s lease was valid as a matter of law and no violation of federal regulations occurred.  Judge Hitner granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the class action with prejudice.  This decision was a monumental victory for the trucking industry in both Texas and Louisiana.

Elvira Moreno v. Ace Transportation, in the 157^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas-Major Commercial Vehicle Accident-Brain Damage-Defense Verdict

•     After a three week jury trial, a take nothing defense verdict was obtained in favor of Ace Transportation, Inc.  Plaintiff, Elvira Moreno was involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer rig making a turn into an oil field rig location resulting in severe brain damage and permanent physical and mental disability.  The case was clearly worth at least $10 million in actual damages, if the plaintiff had prevailed.  However, using accident reconstruction techniques and the effective use of eye witness testimony, attorneys at Frock & Broussard, P.C. were able to convince the jury that the accident was the result of Plaintiff’s negligence and the truck driver acted properly and prudently in making his right turn into the drilling site.  Plaintiff was essentially alleging a “mouse trapping” type scenario where her car was crushed during the right turn.  Plaintiff alleged that the tractor-trailer rig made a right turn from the left lane of the road without using a turn signal, thus confusing the Plaintiff and trapping her vehicle.   Plaintiff also claimed that it was physically impossible for the tractor-trailer rig to make the turn entirely within the right lane.

     Using a videotape reenactment of the accident, the firm’s attorneys were able to show the jury that the truck could properly make the turn from the right lane and the Plaintiff’s mouse trapping theory was not valid.  The trial resulted in a complete victory for the firm’s client, Ace Transportation.

Ronald Sherman and Charles Revils v. Robert Stonebreaker, CX Roberson, Inc. fka Cheyenne Express, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division – Commercial Vehicle Accident – Multiple Lumbar Disk Herniations – Defense Verdict

•     A defense verdict was obtained in a jury trial on behalf of a major motor carrier in a collision between an eighteen-wheeler and a tow truck that occurred in Houston, Texas.  Both Plaintiffs claimed severe injuries from this accident, including multiple lumbar disc herniations, which allegedly would require hundreds of thousands of dollars in future surgery and rehabilitation.  Roberson had originally been represented by another defense firm, who initially stated that it was a defensible case.  This firm then recommended an $80,000.00 settlement at a pretrial conference under pressure from a federal judge.  Roberson contacted Frock & Broussard for a second opinion.  The attorneys at Frock & Broussard immediately took command of the file and recommended that the case be tried to verdict based on the evidence. 

     The firm was able to demonstrate numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the two plaintiffs, especially in view of the physical evidence.  They also were able to establish that the Plaintiffs’ injuries were due to preexisting conditions through the skillful use of their prior medical records.  Using effective cross-examination, Plaintiffs’ treating orthopedic surgeon who testified live at trial for $10,000.00 per day, was shown to be a charlatan and Plaintiffs’ case totally collapsed.   This decisive victory was achieved on behalf of a client who otherwise would have wasted $80,000 on what was a completely unmeritorious claim.  This case is a perfect example of what sets Frock & Broussard apart from most other firms.

Steven C. Williams v. California Acrylic Industries, Inc., d/b/a CALS Spas and Charles E. Hewitt, III. – Breach of Contract – Fraud – Deceptive Trade Practices – Defense Verdict

•     The firm obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of a major manufacturer against a former dealer who was suing for fraud, breach of contract and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  California Acrylic Industries, Inc. is a nationwide manufacturer of recreational products including portable spas, and backyard recreational furniture and products.  The company works primarily through independent dealers who sign agency agreements with the company.  Mr. Williams was such an agent who claimed that he lost millions of dollars because the company misrepresented the terms of the agreement, failed to provide proper support and furnished defective products. 

     Attorneys at Frock & Broussard, P.C. were able to show that Mr. Williams’ financial losses were due to his own incompetence and poor business practices and not due to any breach of contract or misrepresentation on behalf of California Acrylic Industries, Inc.  As a result of a jury trial, a final take nothing judgment was awarded against Mr. Williams and in favor of the firm’s client. 

Charles Gilcrest v. John Frederick d/b/a Ace Transportation, Inc., Ace Transportation, Inc. and Cliff Hall & Company, in the 129^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas – Commercial Vehicle Accident – Products Liability – Defense Verdict

•     A defense verdict was obtained after a jury trial in a case by a truck driver whose tractor-trailer rig overturned while existing a freeway in Louisiana.  The Plaintiff had purchased the tractor-trailer rig from his terminal manager, John Frederick, and sued Mr. Frederick for negligence, product liability claims and breach of warranty alleging that the steering mechanism on the tractor was defective.  He also sued his employer Ace Transportation for failing to provide a safe truck for him to operate.  Plaintiff was encouraged because the report from the Louisiana Highway Patrol supported his claim that the steering mechanism was defective.  Plaintiff also claimed spoliation because the tractor was scrapped shortly after the accident.

     Attorneys at Frock & Broussard were able to convince the jury that the truck was not defective and the accident was caused because Mr. Gilcrest over steered while he was negotiating the S curve exit ramp and was traveling at a high rate of speed.  They did this using accident reconstruction techniques and effective cross-examination of Mr. Gilcrest.

     Plaintiff was also claiming that he was totally disabled due to damage to his knee and his lumbar spine.  He claimed that he needed a total knee replacement and back surgery.  However, a close review of his medical records showed that there was no objective evidence for these claims and that his complaints, especially about the knee, did not begin until months after the accident.  Effective use of an independent orthopedic surgeon, along with a thorough analysis of Plaintiff’s medical records, were used to convince the jury that Mr. Gilcrest had only suffered superficial scrapes and bruises and was not disabled.  The jury rendered a complete defense verdict in favor of the firm’s clients.

Willard Gene Verret v. Torch Oil & Gas and Ace Transportation, Inc., in the 136^th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas – Oil Field Accident – Operated Lumbar Disk – Defense Verdict

•     The firm successfully defended an oil field transportation company in an action brought by an employee of a drilling contractor.  Plaintiff claimed that during a rig down operation he was attempting to remove a large donut shaped component from a harness on the rig that was being suspended by a cable truck.  He alleged that the truck allowed the equipment to suddenly shift and forced all of the weight on Plaintiff causing severe injury to his lower back.  While most defense firms would have been reluctant to recommend trying a case in Jefferson County, especially against one of the most prominent local attorneys, Frock & Broussard obtained a defense verdict after a jury trial.

     Attorneys at the firm used contradictions between Plaintiff’s deposition and his court room testimony to demonstrate that the equipment shifted because he lost his grip and not because the crane on the truck dropped the load.  In addition, the firm was able to find and depose critical witnesses who served to contradict Plaintiffs story and support their client’s position. 

     Plaintiff had lower back surgery immediately after the accident, and had not worked since the day of the accident.  He was claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars in past and future medical expenses, lost income and lost earning capacity.  However, the firm was able to obtain his prior medical records and show that his back problems actually predated the accident.  They were able to convince the jury that his surgery was caused by these preexisting conditions and not the accident.  As a result, the firm proved to the jury that the accident was caused by Plaintiff’s own negligence and that his injuries and subsequent surgery were due to preexisting conditions.  The jury was also convinced that Mr. Verret could have returned to work even after his post accident back surgery and was not totally disabled.  Thus, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict for the firm’s client.

Tammy Enos v. Greg Enos, in the 246^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas – Major Divorce Trial – Property Division and Custody Dispute - Successful Verdict

•     In a change of pace from our typical practice, the firm participated in a complex divorce, property division and custody battle involving a prominent local attorney.  The case involved claims of legal malpractice, “shady” international characters and many other issues.  After an almost one month jury trial, a verdict was rendered in favor of the firm’s client on all issues.

     Attorneys at Frock & Broussard normally are not involved in domestic disputes.  However, the firm’s prominence in the Houston litigation arena sometimes draws us into matters that are not related to the transportation industry.  These are usually either for other attorneys or for the owners, officers and directors of the corporate clients the firm represents.  This is just part of the total package of services that we provide our clients on a consistent basis.

Elbridge Gerry v. The Gem Agencies, Inc., in the 125^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas – Insurance Agent – Hurricane Damage – Defense Verdict

•     In this action the firm achieved a successful jury verdict in favor of an insurance agency that had been sued for failure to place windstorm insurance with the Texas Catastrophe Pool in time for a hurricane, which destroyed the homeowner’s waterfront property.  This case involved disputed fact issues between the homeowner and the insurance agent concerning the substance and timing of requests for insurance that passed between them.  Apparently, the homeowner owned multiple properties and there was some confusion concerning these various properties.  Another complication of the case was that the property had been rented to another individual who was making a claim for loss of personal effects that were in the house at the time of the storm. 

     Through impeachment with deposition testimony and use of documentary evidence attorneys at Frock & Broussard were able to demonstrate to the jury that their client, the insurance agency, acted properly in complying with the instructions of its client.  Consequently, the jury rendered a jury verdict completely exonerating the agent.

Laurie Sepulvado and Larry Sepulvado v. Chrysler Corporation, Navistar International Transportation Corporation, Rosenberg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., CMC Concrete Accessories, Inc. d/b/a Sheplers, and Seguin Welding Service, in the District Court of Harris County 164^th Judicial District – Major Commercial Vehicle Accident – Products Liability – Brain Damage

•     The Firm successfully defended CMC Accessories, Inc. d/b/a Sheplers, a subsidiary of a major steel fabrication company, Commercial Metals Company, in a complex products liability action involving an underride accident that resulted in catastrophic brain damage to a championship country western dancer.  The case attracted significant media attention due to the notoriety of the injured Plaintiff, Laurie Sepulvado.  Using state of the art technology, including sophisticated accident reconstruction and computer animation and the top national experts in occupant kinematics, attorneys at Frock & Broussard were able to obtain a successful result for their clients. 

Alliance Savings and Loan v. Tri-State Insurance and Southwest International Underwriter Managers, Inc., in the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Supreme Judicial District of Houston, Texas - Insurance Coverage – Ground Breaking Appellate Decision

•     In this case the firm successfully appealed a directed verdict that had been granted against its client (“Alliance”) in the trial court, and obtained a reversal of that decision.  This was a case of first impression in Texas.  It concerned whether a mortgagee could recover under an insurance policy covering real property in which it had a security interest, when the policy did not list the mortgagee as an additional insured.  The Houston Court of Appeals held that Article 6.15 of the Texas Insurance Code provided that if the mortgage instrument required the mortgagor to obtain insurance on the property payable to the mortgagee, then the mortgagee was entitled to recover the proceeds of the policy even though the policy did not list the mortgagee as an additional insured.

       This issue had never been decided before in Texas.  It required the insurance company, Tri-State to pay the proceeds of the policy to the mortgagee, Alliance Savings & Loan even though the property owner never disclosed the mortgage and had intentionally firebombed the house to avoid repaying the loan.  Thus, even though the criminal misconduct of the homeowner precluded his recovery under the insurance policy, the unnamed mortgagee, Alliance, could recoup its security interest in the property.

 Trudy Sween v. Aaron’s Mobile Service Center, in the 165^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Premises Liability-Defense Verdict

•     The firm’s attorneys successfully defended a service station owner who had been sued on a premises liability theory by a woman who was injured when the jack supporting her car was suddenly lowered by the service attendant.  Plaintiff claimed that she was not warned by the attendant that the he was about to lower the jack.  The car struck her head and Plaintiff contended she suffered a closed head injury and could not work.  Plaintiff was a prominent artist in Houston and claimed severe injuries and significant loss of income.  The jury rejected her argument and agreed with Defendant’s position.

Calvin Jeffrey v. Larino Homes, in the 152^nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Construction Accident-Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm’s attorneys successful defended a construction company against an employee of a subcontractor who was injured during the construction of a house.  Plaintiff alleged that there was a latent defect, which caused the floor to collapse where he was working, leaving him severely injured.  He was claiming permanent disability due to a low back injury.  Attorneys at the firm were able to demonstrate that the accident was actually caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff and that his personal injury claims were greatly exaggerated.  A take nothing judgment against the plaintiff was rendered based on a jury verdict.

Gene Foreman v. Ramada Inns, in the 333^rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Premises Liability-Electrocution-Heart Attack-Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm obtained a take nothing judgment in favor of its client after a jury trial.  Plaintiff claimed he was electrocuted while attempting to repair an air-conditioning unit located at a Ramada Inn.  Plaintiff claimed that he suffered a severe heart attact as a result of the electricution and was permanently disabled.  Using expert testimony, attorneys at the firm were able to demonstrate that the technique employed by the Plaintiff to repair the unit was unreasonably dangerous and he was responsible for his own electrocution.  Testimony was also presented through an expert cardiologist that the heart attact was not caused by the electrocution, but was related to preexisting factors.  The jury verdict resulted in a take nothing judgment for the defendant.

Jester Plaza v. Elaine Kid, in the 270^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Landlord/Tenant-Deceptive Trade Practices-Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm successfully defended a landlord in a wrongful eviction case, brought by a commercial tenant.  Plaintiff was operating a business on the landlord’s property.  The landlord locked out the tenant for non-payment of rent and began eviction proceedings.  The firm defended the landlord against a claim of wrongful eviction.  Plaintiffs were alleging substantial economic loss as a result of business interruption and loss of business opportunity as a result of what it claimed was a wrongful eviction.  Attorneys at the firm successfully defended the landlord resulting in a take nothing jury verdict in favor of its client against the Plaintiff. 

Ira Burr v. Jimmy Butler Insurance Agency, in the 152^nd Judicial District of Harris County, Texas - Insurance Agent - Hurricane Damage-Defense Verdict

•     In this case attorneys at the firm successfully defended an insurance agent against a claim that the agent failed to procure Federal Flood Insurance for one of its customers, who suffered a complete loss to his waterfront property during a hurricane.  Though skillful use of impeachment of the Plaintiff and expert testimony, attorneys at the firm were able to demonstrate to the jury that the insurance agent acted prudently and properly and that the failure to have the property insured was due to the negligence of the Plaintiff.  The result was a take nothing jury verdict in favor of the firm’s client. 

Randall Yarborough v. Phillips Petroleum Company, in the 80^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas - Product/Employer’s Liability - Defense Verdict

•     A defense verdict was obtained in a non-jury trial on behalf of a major petroleum company who was sued by an employee of an independent contractor.  Mr. Yarborough was involved in helping to move a heavy piece of oilfield equipment using a crane that had been supplied by the firm’s client, Phillips Petroleum Company.  During the operation the cables became detached from the hook on the crane and the equipment fell on Mr. Yarborough causing severe and permanent injuries.  Plaintiff’s theory was that Phillips was negligent because the hook did not contain a safety clip to prevent the cables from popping out when there was slack on the cable.  However, it was demonstrated that the cause of the accident was not related to whether the hook on the crane had a safety clip.  Rather it was caused because Mr. Yarborough and his fellow employees did not know how to properly rig the equipment, which allowed it to slip and fall on Mr. Yarborough causing his injuries.  The result was a defense verdict for Phillips rendered by the court.

Ronald Atwood v. Phillips Petroleum Company, in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division - Premises Liability - Defense Verdict

•     A defense verdict was obtained in a non-jury trial concerning an employee of an independent contractor of Phillips Petroleum Company.  This was a premises liability case where the Plaintiff was claiming that he slipped on steps maintained at a Phillips Refinery while he was reporting for work for an independent contractor of Phillips.  Using skillful impeachment and witness testimony, it was demonstrated that Mr. Atwood’s accident was caused by his own negligence and that his reported injuries were inconsistent with his medical records and the examination by the physician shortly after the accident.  The trial resulted in a take nothing judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor of the Defendant, Phillips.

Independent Freightways, Inc. v. Acme Truck Lines and Transportation Financial Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division - Federal Leasing Regulations - Major Commercial Vehicle Accident -Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm obtained a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, who was being sued as a result of a trip lease between two motor carriers.  Acme entered into a trip lease with Independent Freightways, Inc., wherein Acme was the lessor and Independent Freightways, Inc. was the lessee.  During the term of the trip lease the Independent Freightways driver was involved in a fatal accident, which was due to his negligence.  After paying a $1,000,000.00 settlement with the injured party, Independent Freightways sued Acme under the trip lease agreement purporting that it provided indemnity in favor of Independent Freightways, Inc. 

      Attorneys for the firm were able to demonstrate to the Court that the indemnity was invalid under Texas law and that under the provisions of the Federal Leasing Regulations Clause that the lessee was responsible for the conduct of the driver and the resulting accident during the terms of the trip lease.  The Court entered final summary judgment in favor of the firm’s client, Acme Truck Lines, Inc. 

James Anthony Sexton v. Tom Baker Insurance Agency, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the 14^th Supreme Judicial District of Texas - Insurance - Uninsured Motorist Coverage-Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm successfully defended an appeal of a summary judgment it obtained for its client at the trial court level.  This case involved a suit by a truck driver against an insurance agency concerning uninsured motorist coverage.  The Plaintiff was a truck driver with a trucking and storage company in Houston.  Plaintiff claimed that because he never signed a waiver of his uninsured motorist coverage, he was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his policy.  This case extended the principle concerning uninsured motorist coverage first stated in Geisler v. Mid-Century 712 S.W.2^nd 184 (Tex. App. Hou. [14^th] 1986.)  Thus, even though the truck driver did not sign a valid waiver of uninsured motorist coverage, he was not entitled to any uninsured motorist benefits because he had collected the minimum liability insurance limits from the tort feasor.

CNA Insurance Company v. United States Fire Insurance Company, before a panel of arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association, Houston, Texas - Multiple Insurance Policies - Allocation of Coverage - Legal Malpractice-Defense Verdict

•     In this case the firm successfully represented an insurance company in an arbitration between two professional liability carriers.    The case involved a legal malpractice claim against an attorney who drafted a lease for a private jet.  The FAA brought suit against the lessee/client for multiple FAA violations, because the lease was not properly drafted.  The issue in the case concerned whether there was a single act or omission committed by the attorney or multiple occurrences, which would have triggered the application of additional coverage.    In other words, whether there was one occurrence (the drafting of the lease), or multiple occurrences for each violation of government regulations caused by the lease.  The arbitrators agreed with the position of the firm’s client U.S. Fire and the adversary party, CNA took nothing as a result of the arbitration. 

Carrie Winslow, Ind. a/n/f of Anglelica Henley, a minor v. Jeevana Jothi, LTD, db/a Thorntree Apartments, In the 333^rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas – Sexual Assault – Premises liability – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case

•     The firm successfully defended an apartment complex in an action brought by the plaintiff claiming that her daughter was sexually assaulted and beaten.  The minor plaintiff went to the management office after school because she had forgotten the key to her apartment.  The manager allegedly provided her a master key with instructions to immediately return it after she gained access to her apartment.  Plaintiff contends that while returning the key and unknown assailant entered her apartment.  She claims to have been sexually assaulted and beaten upon her return. 

       Attorneys at Frock & Broussard, P.C. were successful in obtaining Sanctions and a Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case because of Plaintiffs’ failure to participate in the discovery process.  Plaintiffs’ pleadings were stricken, the case was dismissed and monetary sanctions were awarded resulting in a successful outcome for the defense. 

Joshua Murray v. East Texas Data Systems, Inc. d/b/a The Sports Shack, In the 145^th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas – Liquor Liability – Dram Shop – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case

•     The firm successfully defended a dram-shop, liquor liability case brought against the owners of a nightclub and restaurant.  Plaintiff and a fraternity brother were involved in a single vehicle accident resulting in the death of the driver.  It is alleged that both individuals were served large quantities of alcohol at the Sports Shack prior to the collision.  The cause of the accident was determined to be the intoxication of the driver.  The surviving plaintiff sustained serious head injuries and claimed permanent brain damage.  Medical expense exceeded $90,000. 

        Attorneys at the firm utilized the Safe Harbor Provision of the Texas Servers Training Act to obtain a Dismissal.  Plaintiff alleged the nightclub violated various sections of the Alcohol Beverage Code preventing an establishment from serving alcohol to an intoxicated patron.  A successful defense to the allegations was established once compliance with the Safe Harbor Provision was shown.  The case was ultimately dismissed prior to trial and without payment to the plaintiff. 

Eulalido Garcia v. Shadow Ridge Multi-Family Investment LTD d/b/a Shadow Ridge Apartment, Inc., In the 334^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas – Inadequate Security – Negligence – Premises Liability – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case

•     Plaintiff brought his cause of action against an apartment complex based upon standard theories of negligence, premises liability and inadequate security.   Plaintiff claimed that he had been shot while sitting in his car in front of his apartment and ultimately robbed.  A Summary Judgment was filed and Plaintiff’s case was dismissed once it was established that the defendant’s security company owed Plaintiff no duty at the time of the incident in question. 

Georgia Lee Culton, Individually and As Legal Representative of the Estate of Gary Culton, Deceased v. George A. Kruegar, Fleetline, Inc., and Advantage Transportation, Inc., d/b/a Fleetline Advantage Transportation, Inc., In the 278^th Judicial District of Madison County, Texas – Fatal Trucking Accident – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s case

•     The firm successfully defended a trucking company following a fatality that occurred on a rural stretch of interstate highway.  The Plaintiff claimed that the trucking company driver disregarded a stop sign resulting in a fatal trailer under ride in which the deceased was decapitated.  The accident occurred after dark in an area where no ambient or artificial lighting existed.  A rapid response team and forensic specialists were utilized to locate witnesses and develop evidence to establish the deceased was intoxicated and his headlights had not been illuminated.  Once the evidence was submitted, a dismissal of Plaintiffs case was obtained without payment.

Galveston Yacht Service, Inc. vs. M. Randal Nickels and Wyllie E. Brown d/b/a Rascals Charters, Inc., In the County Civil Court at Law #2, Harris County, Texas;

•     This case involved a claim for negligently performed repairs to a yacht in the amount of $154, 000.00. The case was successfully defended resulting in a dismissal of the claims without any payment being made.

Edward Trevino, Individually and as next friend of Ryan Trevino vs. Sonic Drive In, et al., In the 165^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

•     This was a claim on behalf of a minor child who was injured on the premises of a Sonic Drive In while playing on an inflated plastic playground supplied by the insured, Aero bounce, Inc. The Plaintiff’s father was claiming that several of his teeth were fractured which would require dental work. The case was settled for $7,500.00. Only $500.00 was contributed on behalf of the insured.

Courtney Smith vs. DAE and Associates Limited, et al., In the 333^rd Judicial District court of Harris County, Texas

•     This case involved an injury to an employee of a company who performed engineering services. The employee was injured when his foot was caught in an extruder machine, causing a severe crushing injury eventually leading to the amputation of three toes. Plaintiff brought a negligence action against his employer and a products liability claim against several other parties, including the insured defendant. After some limited discovery, a dismissal was obtained for the insured defendant, Coastal Hydraulic Cranes, Inc. It was demonstrated through documentation that Coastal performed repairs on a part of the machine that was not involved in the injury suffered by the Plaintiff. Thus, the case was closed without any payment being made in the case.

Caroline Rodriguez vs. Fiesta Mart, Inc., Fulton Shopping Center, Inc. and International Total Services, Inc., In the 125^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

•     This was a premises liability case brought by Plaintiff who claimed that she was injured in the parking lot in front of a Fiesta grocery store. She claimed that she tripped over a concrete parking stop after parking and exiting her car. She indicated that the stop was out of place, which caused her to trip as soon as she opened the door. The insured was a security service that provided periodic patrols within the parking lot. Plaintiff’s theory against the insured Defendant was that it failed to discover the out of place parking stop that caused Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered a severe injury to her right knee, which required three subsequent surgeries. She claimed medical expenses in the amount of $100,000.00 with additional amounts for lost wages and other damages. The case was successfully defended on behalf of the insured defendant, both on liability and damages. Plaintiff had some pre-existing problems with her knees documented in her medical records, and her post accident medical history was inconsistent with her claims. The case was settled by the other Defendants with no payment being made on behalf of the insured defendant.

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company vs. Oaktown Apartments Limited, In the County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Harris County, Texas.

•     This was a claim by Southwestern Bell concerning some damage to phone equipment located at the insured’s apartment complex. Southwestern Bell claimed that the insured negligently caused a fire that destroyed some of its equipment. However, an investigation revealed that it was actually Southwestern Bell employees working in the area where the fire occurred that most probably caused the fire. Consequently, Southwestern Bell voluntarily dismissed its case against the insured defendant and the file was closed without any payment being made to the Plaintiff.

Starr Apartments, Inc. vs. Acceptance Insurance Company, et al, In the 215^th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

•     Plaintiff, Starr Apartments, Inc. filed this action against the insured Defendant, Specialized Leak Detection, LLC as well as several other companies, as a result of problems with an underground sewage system at the apartment. Starr had filed a claim with its property insurance carrier in the amount of $400,000.00. The insured Defendant was hired by the adjuster retained by the insurance company to investigate the claim. In the process performing a test of the sewage system, it backed up and flooded several apartments. Plaintiff’s claim against the insured Defendant was based on an allegation that they improperly performed the test causing the damage to the units. The case was successfully defended and was eventually dismissed without any payment being made to the Plaintiff on behalf of the insured Defendant. It was demonstrated that the sewage system at the apartment complex was deteriorated through years of neglect and improper maintenance. Therefore, the damage to the apartment during the test was caused by pre-existing defects in the system and not any improper testing on the part of the insured Defendant. Thus, the file was closed without any payment being made on behalf of the insured.