Insurance Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Strong & Hanni Law Firm : Product Liability, Insurance Coverage

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Strong & Hanni has long been recognized as one of the top litigation firms in the State of Utah.  Here are just a few examples of recent courtroom victories by Strong & Hanni attorneys:

1. Defense Verdict in Three Day Jury Trial  

    Peter H. Christensen recently obtained a defense verdict after a three day jury trial.  The case involved a rear end automobile accident where liability was stipulated to by the defendant.  The plaintiff alleged that she sustained a broken nose in the accident as well as neck and back injuries.  The plaintiff’s witnesses included both a chiropractor and a plastic surgeon.  The defendant responded with an IME physician and a biomechanical expert, claiming that the accident forces were not sufficient enough to have caused the alleged injuries, and that plaintiff’s symptoms pre-dated the accident.  After nearly two hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding that the medical expenses reasonably related to this accident were less than the statutory threshold of $3,000, and that plaintiff was therefore entitled to no damages.  

2. Summary Judgment for Excess Insurer 

    Paul M. Belnap, Andrew D. Wright and James C. Thompson successfully represented an excess insurer in a contribution claim involving two primary insurers.  After several years of litigation, including a successful appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Strong & Hanni obtained favorable rulings by way of summary judgment which ultimately forced the two primary carriers to pay nearly $1.5 million in contribution.  The case shows that where one insurer steps in to protect its insured and other insurers fail to contribute properly, Utah courts will allow the paying insurer to recover from the non-paying insurer by way of a contribution cause of action.

3. No Cause in Auto-Bicycle Case

    Peter H. Barlow and H. Scott Jacobson recently won a complete defense verdict after a four day jury trial. The lawsuit concerned a 1995 automobile versus bicycle accident. The plaintiff, who was twelve years old at the time of the accident, attempted to cross a busy street on his bicycle and failed to signal, look or give any indication that he intended to cross the road. The defendant was operating her vehicle within the speed limit, within her lane of travel, and was watching the bicyclist at all relevant times before he darted into the side of her car.  As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered a documented brain injury and requested a multi-million dollar award for a complete loss of past and future wages, and for past and future medical treatment and care for the rest of the plaintiff's life. After fifty minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous verdict indicating that the defendant was not negligent.     

4. Summary Judgment for Driver in Wrongful Death Claim

    Robert L. Janicki and Lance H. Locke recently obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death action arising out of a single vehicle accident.  The plaintiff, the mother of the decedent, brought an action against the defendant driver of the vehicle in which the decedent was a passenger at the time of the accident.  At the time of the accident, the defendant and the decedent were returning home from an out-of-state business trip.  The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was brought pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-105 which provides that workers’ compensation shall be the exclusive remedy by employees or their heirs against an employer or against another employee acting in the course and scope of his employment.  In opposing the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that, in returning from the out-of-state business trip, the parties fell within the “coming and going” rule which states that employees who are merely commuting to and from work are not acting in the course and scope of their employment.  The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument by finding that the commute home from the out-of-state business trip was part of a “special activity” which was undertaken for the benefit of the employer.  Because the parties were found to be acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the automobile accident, the Court ruled that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Utah Labor Code served to bar the plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit against the defendant.

5. Summary Judgment for General Contractor in a Slip and Fall Case

    Stephen J. Trayner and H. Scott Jacobson recently obtained summary judgment in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff was an employee of a local grocery store, and the slip and fall occurred while the plaintiff was walking through the produce department of the grocery store.  At the time of the incident, the grocery store was undergoing extensive renovation work.  Strong & Hanni was defending the general contractor that was performing the renovation work.  Throughout the course of discovery, the plaintiff was unable to produce any evidence identifying the specific substance or condition that caused her to slip and fall, but attempted to argue that the fall was likely caused by conditions related to the ongoing construction such as construction dust and an unfinished floor near the produce racks.  The defendant’s motion for summary judgment argued that the plaintiff has the burden of establishing what the alleged dangerous condition actually was, and that summary judgment should be granted because the plaintiff had failed to present any evidence of what she actually slipped on.  The trial court agreed that plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact, and that plaintiff’s various theories of what she might have slipped on could only lead a jury to speculate as to the cause of the incident.  Summary judgment was granted, and all claims against the contractor were dismissed with prejudice.

6. Summary Judgment for Insurance Carrier In Breach of Contract Claim

    Robert L. Janicki and Lance H. Locke recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of their insurance carrier client. The plaintiff, a governmental entity, brought suit against the insurance carrier alleging breach of contract. The claim for breach of contract was asserted on the basis that the plaintiff was required to be named as an additional insured under the insurance carrier’s policy of insurance pursuant to the plaintiff’s agreement with the co-defendant construction company with whom the plaintiff had contracted. The plaintiff sought recovery of funds it had paid out to a third-party as a result of an alleged defect in the construction project which was completed a few months prior to the date of loss by the co-defendant construction company. The court granted the insurance carrier’s motion for summary judgment and ruled as a matter of law that the terms of the insurance policy terminated the plaintiff’s status as an additional insured under the policy once the construction project was put to its intended use by the plaintiff.

7. Summary Judgment for Trucking Company in Property Damage Claim

    Robert L. Janicki and Lance H. Locke recently obtained partial summary judgment on behalf of their client, a trucking company. The plaintiff, the insurance carrier for a property owner whose property was allegedly damaged by one of the trucking company vehicles, argued that the trucking company was bound by the arbitration award issued as a result of an arbitration between the plaintiff insurance carrier and its insured property owner. The court granted the trucking company's motion for summary judgment finding as a matter of law that the trucking company was not bound by the arbitration award.