Daniel Bentz, managing partner in the Pittsburgh office, recently obtained a favorable ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, upholding the defense verdict obtained at the trial level. This was a complex products liability case in which our client was accused of manufacturing defective specialty seats used in the locomotive industry.

After a nine-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. The Plaintiff appealed the verdict, claiming the jury’s verdict was inconsistent, which could not be reconciled, and demanded a new trial on all the issues.

The Third Circuit disagreed with this and affirmed the defense verdict.

Marks, O’Neill’s Delaware office obtained favorable summary judgment rulings in two asbestos matters pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The motions were presented by Eileen Ford, Esquire.

In both matters, Plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from their time serving in the US Navy. Summary judgment motions were filed on the basis that there was insufficient product identification to meet the initial element of Maritime law, namely that the plaintiff was exposed to a product manufactured by the defendant (i.e. Lindstrom factors). Plaintiffs opposed both motions on the basis that the record contained adequate evidence of Plaintiffs’ work with and/or around the defendants products, however, spent the majority of their oppositions arguing that pursuant to Air & Liquid Sys. Corp v. DeVries, the 2019 United States Supreme Court ruling, the duty to warn factors are primary factors to be considered, before the Lindstrom product nexus and substantial factor requirements are addressed.  The Superior Court Judge disagreed and ruled that it did not need to reach the DeVries analysis because there is insufficient evidence that Plaintiff met  the first element of Lindstrom (i.e. no evidence of exposure to defendants product).

Sean Kelly of Marks O’Neill’s New Jersey office was successful in obtaining dismissal of legal malpractice claims arising from our client’s representation of the plaintiff in complex commercial litigation.  Following that ruling, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to cure the causation deficiencies recognized by the District Court between our client’s representation and the alleged damages.  The Amended Complaint sought damages in excess of $50 million dollars.  We sought dismissal of the Amended Complaint arguing that Plaintiff’s claim that a court would have ruled differently but for the alleged negligence of our client failed to establish a proximate causal relationship.  The District Court agreed and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Marks O’Neill’s Philadelphia office participated in a holiday charity drive collecting items for the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), to benefit children through CHOP’s Child Life, Education and Creative Arts Therapy program.