Case Background and Parties

Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, as subrogee of a party suffering catastrophic property loss, brought suit against Grove Manufacturing Company, alleging that a defective crane manufactured by Grove was the proximate cause of a disastrous incident resulting in significant damage. The litigation centered on whether the crane’s design or maintenance failures led to the disaster, and whether industry standards for disaster prevention and response were met.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Timothy Davis initiated a products liability action after suffering a gunshot wound to his leg while exiting his truck, caused by the discharge of a Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry pistol. Davis alleged that the firearm was defectively designed, asserting strict liability and negligence under Kentucky law. He argued that the pistol was unreasonably dangerous and that feasible alternative designs could have prevented his injury.

Background and Parties

Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Theranos, and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, the company’s president, were charged with multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The government alleged that Holmes and Balwani made false statements to investors and patients about the capabilities and reliability of Theranos’s blood-testing technology, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in investments and significant public harm.

A notable example is the case of Johnson v. Mayers, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Alabama in 2025. This matter arose from the probate of Samuel D. Johnson’s will, which contained specific instructions regarding the disposition of his estate and, by implication, the handling of his funeral arrangements. The parties included Timothy Brian Johnson and Phillip Barnes, nephews of the deceased, who contested the administration of the estate, and Judith Mayers, the sole surviving named beneficiary and appointed administrator. The dispute centered on the interpretation of survivorship language in the will and the application of Alabama’s antilapse statute, with broader implications for the responsibilities of funeral homes in executing testamentary instructionsJohnson v. Mayers, Supreme Court of Alabama 2025.

In this litigation, the Funerals & Funeral Homes Expert Witness was retained to provide authoritative testimony on industry protocols for honoring testamentary directives related to funeral services and the transfer of remains. The expert’s analysis encompassed:

Pat Rose Associates (PRA), a limited partnership, initiated suit against D. Wesley Coombe and Mervyn G. Flory, key officers of Kingsway Services, Inc., following a series of transactions involving the Sands Hotel in Palm Springs. PRA alleged fraud in the sale of the hotel and breach of a hotel lease, seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The litigation arose after PRA purchased the hotel from Kingsway, only to discover material misrepresentations and failures related to the lease and the hotel’s financial condition.

The factual matrix revolved around the December 1979 acquisition of the Sands Hotel by Kingsway for $3.2 million, financed in part by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. PRA subsequently acquired the hotel, relying on representations regarding the lease and the property’s value. When the lease terms and the hotel’s financial performance failed to meet expectations, PRA claimed it had been defrauded and suffered significant economic harm.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Jennifer Harris, a Black sales executive, brought claims of race discrimination and retaliation against FedEx Corporate Services under Title VII. Harris alleged that FedEx subjected her to a hostile work environment, denied her promotion opportunities, and ultimately retaliated against her for raising discrimination concerns. After trial in the Southern District of Texas, the jury returned a verdict awarding Harris approximately $366 million in damages.

Background and Parties

Venequip, S.A., a Venezuelan supplier of heavy equipment, maintained a longstanding dealership relationship with Caterpillar Sàrl, the Swiss subsidiary of Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. The parties’ sales and service agreements contained forum selection and choice-of-law clauses mandating that all disputes be resolved in Swiss courts under Swiss law. In 2019, Caterpillar Sàrl terminated Venequip’s dealership, prompting Venequip to initiate contract litigation in Geneva, Switzerland. To support its claims in the Swiss proceeding, Venequip sought expansive discovery from Caterpillar Inc. and its affiliates in the United States, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes U.S. district courts to order discovery for use in foreign tribunals.

Background and Facts

Pedro Fidalgo, an employee at a Massachusetts foundry, suffered catastrophic injuries while operating a suspended lifting device equipped with a foundry hook manufactured by Columbus McKinnon Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the hook was defectively designed because it lacked a latch, which allowed it to slip off a trunnion post during use, causing the accident. They further asserted that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the dangers of using the hook in suspended lifting operations.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Jackson, asserted that NuVasive, Inc. infringed several patents related to spinal implant systems. The dispute focused not only on the technical merits of infringement but also on the appropriate measure of damages, specifically the reasonable royalty that would have been negotiated in a hypothetical licensing scenario.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, Elisabeth Wolff, brought suit against Tomahawk Manufacturing, alleging that a defect in the defendant’s lift equipment caused her serious injury during operation. Wolff claimed that the lift’s design and safety mechanisms were inadequate, resulting in a preventable accident. Tomahawk Manufacturing denied liability, asserting that the equipment met all applicable safety standards and that any alleged defect did not cause the plaintiff’s injuries.