Darrell Polk, et al. v. Alcoa, Inc

Jun 20, 2012

OUTCOME: The parties settled during Defendant's case-in-chief after two and a half weeks of trial in Dallas County, Texas.

In this gross negligence case against an employer, Plaintiffs alleged that Decedent's lung cancer was caused by a synergistic effect of smoking cigarettes and occupational exposure to asbestos. Defend ... ant argued that Decedent's lung cancer was caused by smoking, only, and that at no time did Defendant's conduct constitute "gross negligence."

John Hall, et al. v. American Standard, Inc., et al.

Jan 14, 2011

OUTCOME: Case resolved favorably after voir dire and jury empanelled.

Molina v. Mesquite Hyundai, et al.

Mar 10, 2008

OUTCOME: The financing institution also recovered its attorneys' fees from the car dealership via a cross-claim for indemnity.

The plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim against a car dealership as well as the financing institution based on a preservation of claims clause included in the plaintiff’s sales contract to pur ... chase a car. HPTY represented the financing institution. The plaintiff sought rescission of the sales contract plus additional damages. After a bench trial, the Court rendered a nominal verdict for the plaintiff, but ordered the judgment paid in full by the car dealership.

Texas Treasure Fields, Inc. v. Tommy Ford, et al.

Apr 18, 2006

OUTCOME: On the eve of trial, Plaintiffs accepted a nuisance value settlement and dismissed the case.

This case involved the largest residential fire loss in American history with $44.5 million in claimed damages. In July 2002, a fire destroyed a 72,000 square foot house located in Dallas, Texas. The h ... ouse had been under construction for several years and was 90-95% completed. Prior to the fire, it was listed for sale for $44.9 million. Plaintiffs (the homeowners) held policies with three insurance companies totaling $25 million which were eventually paid out in full as a result of the fire. HPTY’s client, a Fortune 500 manufacturer and retailer of varnish alleged to have caused the fire, was sued by both the homeowners for damages in excess of the insurance proceeds and by the three insurance companies for subrogation. Plaintiffs sued HPTY’s client for strict product liability (marketing defect) for failure to warn including allegations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), application regulations (C.F.R.s) established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Texas Health and Safety Code; negligence; and breach of implied warranties. Plaintiffs’ theory of liability against HPTY's client was that electrical sparking in the attic ignited solvent vapors from HPTY's client's varnish product and caused the fire. One day before the fire, a flooring contractor applied a large quantity of varnish and let it sit overnight without adequate ventilation. To explain their causation theory, one of Plaintiffs’ experts relied on the concept of fractional distillation, a process traditionally occurring only in laboratory settings whereby a product’s lighter chemicals are separated out and are able to move independently through the atmosphere. But in his deposition, the expert opined that the product at issue spontaneously underwent fractional distillation, certain chemicals migrated into the property’s HVAC system and condensed, then later re-vaporized and were ignited by an incendiary arc from the electronic air cleaner. HPTY's client countered that the product was properly labeled pursuant to the FHSA and that its flash point made Plaintiffs’ theory of causation scientifically impossible. After massive discovery efforts, including more than 100 fact and expert depositions, the trial was set to begin on April 19, 2006.

Treadway v. Rhodes, et al.

Oct 25, 2005

OUTCOME: On behalf of the defendant employers and coworkers, Susan Egeland won a motion for directed verdict after the plaintiff's case-in-chief.

In this employment dispute, the plaintiff sued HPTY's clients for defamation of character, slander and mental anguish after he was terminated from his job.

Fields v. Honeywell International, et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: After extensive discovery efforts, including multiple fact and expert witness depositions, the case was set for trial in March 2010. At the conclusion of the pretrial conference, the case settled favorably.

Plaintiff sued HPTY’s client, a water heater manufacturer, for approximately $2 million in real and personal property loss after a fire destroyed her house in Parker County, Texas. The house was built ... in 1999 and had been vacant as a foreclosure for an unknown amount of time before Plaintiff moved in in early November 2005. The fire occurred less than a month later on December 9, 2005. The parties concurred that the fire started in the attached garage, which had not yet been unpacked from the move and was stacked with boxes from floor to ceiling. As to HPTY’s client, Plaintiff claimed that a defect in the main burner tubing connecting the gas control valve and burner assembly of the water heater caused the fire. According to Plaintiff’s engineering expert, the defect was either that the tubing was not made of sufficient corrosion-resistant material or was not coated with a sufficient corrosion-resistant coating. For one of those two reasons, corrosion formed in the main burner tubing and either: (1) caused the gas control valve to malfunction or (2) obstructed flow through the orifice to the burner in the outlet tube, which requires a constant, fixed rate of flow to burn properly. HPTY’s client’s engineering expert countered that corrosion inside the water heater’s burner tubing would have been a post-fire result after significant fire suppression efforts and being left out in the elements for over a month. He found no defect in the water heater or valve. Further, HPTY’s client’s cause and origin expert testified that the burn pattern and photographic evidence did not support the idea that the water heater was the origin of the fire. Rather, his theory of causation was that the electrical wiring behind the water heater was the origin of the fire; the water heater was simply a fire victim. From his review of the photographic evidence, the fire appeared to have spread from inside the garage wall out to the water heater as opposed to originating at the water heater and spreading inside the wall. HPTY’s client developed a unique spoliation theory in this case and argued a motion to strike much of Plaintiff’s expert witness testimony on that basis. Three days after the fire, Plaintiff’s cause and origin expert conducted the initial fire investigation at the scene. HPTY’s client was not notified of this inspection. Plaintiff’s cause and origin expert identified the water heater as a possible origin of the fire and left the scene without moving or covering the water heater. A month later, HPTY’s client was finally advised of a second site inspection. At that time, the water heater was tagged, photographed and shipped by truck to a storage facility in Sugar Land, Texas (approximately 300 miles). Thus, the water heater was left out in the elements for approximately six weeks before being relocated to storage facilities. During this time, no tarps or other protective coverings were put over the water heater and it was exposed to the elements. Weather data from the local airport shows that it rained approximately 3-5 days during this time and the temperatures were at or below freezing. HPTY’s client argued that these acts compromised the condition of the water heater and constituted spoliation of evidence.

Monitronecs International, Inc. v. Johnson

N/A

OUTCOME: After a bench trial, the judge reduced the plaintiff's requested fees by 20% and reduced the plaintiff's requested expenses by 97%.

The court held a bench trial on the issue of attorneys' fees related to the plaintiff's suit for Non-Payment of Promissory Note and Breach of Guaranty Agreement against HPTY's client. HPTY argued that ... the plaintiff's fees were inflated due to over-staffing and inefficient use of attorney time.

Bobby Dale James, et al. v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

N/A

OUTCOME: After a five-day trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict after a few hours of deliberation.

Ed Slaughter received a defense verdict in an asbestos product liability case on behalf of a national retail chain. Jack Sibley and Susan Egeland assisted at trial. The plaintiff alleged household ex ... posure to asbestos from laundering her husband’s work clothing.

The Vince Hagan Company, Inc. v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

N/A

OUTCOME: The case settled favorably after voir dire and jury empanelment.

In this product liability action, Plaintiff sued HPTY’s client for breaches of warranty, including allegations under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff was a designer and manufacturer of ind ... ustrial concrete batching plants and related equipment in Dallas, Texas. HPTY represented a major paint and coatings manufacturer. Plaintiff argued that HPTY’s client’s product was not fit for the particular purpose required in Plaintiff’s manufacturing operations. HPTY’s client countered that Plaintiff had not properly used its product as instructed, such that any product failure was due to significant user error by Plaintiff and its employees. HPTY’s client also counter-claimed for recovery of significant unpaid invoices for other goods unrelated to the product at issue (suit on account). After extensive discovery, including over two dozen fact and expert witness depositions, the parties began trial in 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas before Judge Martin Hoffman.

Sentry Dairyland Insurance Company v. Eaton Electrical, et al.

N/A

OUTCOME: Plaintiff ultimately agreed to dismiss all remaining claims.

Plaintiff sued for negligence and breach of warranty, alleging that a main heater contactor failed and caused a fire resulting in extensive property loss to an electroplating facility. HPTY represented ... both the manufacturer and non-manufacturing retailer of the main heater contactor. After a nuisance value settlement on behalf of the manufacturer, HPTY filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the non-manufacturing retailer. Because the retailer did not participate in the design of the contactor; did not modify or alter the contactor in any way; did not install the contactor; and did not exercise any control over the warnings and instructions provided by the manufacturer for the contactor, HPTY argued that Plaintiff had no claims against the retailer per Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.003.