- Obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a product liability lawsuit in which Johnson & Bell defended a global electronics and home appliance manufacturer. In this case, a family’s home was destroyed in a fire. The insurer alleged that a wet/dry vacuum – our client’s product -- was the cause of the fire. The insurance company paid the family $540,000 and the family claimed another $280,000 in uninsured losses, for a total verdict exposure of $825,000. Johnson & Bell developed a very strong defense to the product liability allegations and several theories of spoliation against both the insurance company and the family. When it became clear that the product manufacturer would not offer any money to settle the case, the insurance company chose to take a dismissal with prejudice, instead of trying the case against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- Plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and 3rd degree burns when his stopped car was rear-ended by a truck traveling at highway speed. Along with suing the involved driver and trucking entities, plaintiff sued the manufacturer of his vehicle alleging insufficient crash worthiness. After discovery, and forensic inspection, Johnson & Bell represented the automobile manufacturer. Plaintiff chose to dismiss his case against their client instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client. Codefendants eventually reached an eight-figure settlement with plaintiff.
- Plaintiff claimed that the motorcycle he was operating on an “adventure tour” in a South American desert was defective, causing a catastrophic accident in which he suffered multiple spinal fractures. Johnson & Bell represented the motorcycle manufacturer. When, during the initial days of trial plaintiff took a voluntary dismissal to avoid adverse rulings on pretrial motions, Johnson & Bell secured an award for their client of $181,000 in costs. After re-filing, the case again went to trial. Before the trial court, instead of trying the case, plaintiff agreed to settle for $20,000. Because the liens on the file were over 10 times greater than the settlement amount, neither plaintiff nor his counsel ever sought to collect the money.
- Johnson & Bell represented a vehicle fleet leasing company where plaintiff sued, claiming that he suffered facial and brain injury as a result of allege improperly vehicle maintenance by the client and its chosen car-maintenance vendors. After discovery, plaintiff chose to dismiss his claim against Johnson & Bell and our client instead of proceeding to trial against them.
- Johnson & Bell represented the manufacturer of an electronic airbag module. Plaintiffs sued related to a motor vehicle accident where one individual was killed and a second suffered multiple fractures when a vehicle airbag allegedly failed to properly inflate. Plaintiff chose to dismiss the case instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- Obtained dismissal of Park District and landscaping contractor where plaintiff was injured during a charity walk-a-thon.
- Obtained dismissal for landscaping and snow removal contractor sued related to an alleged slip and fall on stairs. This dismissal included recovery of costs and fees for the client.
- Obtained dismissal for hotel where Plaintiff claimed injury involving his use of the hotel’s revolving door.
- Plaintiff’s grocery store suffered a fire that originated in the HVAC system, causing damages of over $1 million. Johnson & Bell’s client, the manufacturer of a furnace safety shut off switch, was the target defendant. After discovery and forensic testing, plaintiff chose to dismiss Johnson & Bell’s client.
- Plaintiff suffered a flooded kitchen and sued the manufacturer of his refrigerator’s ice maker. At trial, plaintiff chose to dismiss the case instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- Plaintiff’s private school flooded allegedly as a result of a product manufactured by Johnson & Bell’s client. After discovery, plaintiff chose to dismiss the case against our client instead of proceeding to trial instead of proceeding to trial.
- Johnson & Bell represented HVAC safety device sued related to a residential gas explosion killing two occupants and sending debris blocks away. Plaintiff dismissed the case instead of proceeding to trial instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- An explosion in a chemical processing plan killed one employee and severely injured another. Johnson & Bell represented the manufacturer of processing equipment used at the plant, the “target defendant”. After plaintiffs settled with all other defendants, plaintiff chose to dismiss the case instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- Plaintiff alleged that steering system of the automobile he was driving failed so as to cause an accident in which he suffered serious injury, including multiple fractures. Johnson & Bell represented the vehicle manufacturer. Plaintiff chose to dismiss the vehicle manufacturer instead of proceeding to trial.
- Plaintiff was injured during an automobile test drive. On the day of trial, plaintiff chose to dismiss our client (second driver in accident) instead of proceeding to trial against Johnson & Bell and our client.
- Plaintiff suffered a fire destroying a garage and its contents. Plaintiff asserted that the fire occurred due to a defect in an automobile present in the garage, claiming over $100,000 in damages. Johnson & Bell represented the vehicle manufacturer. After plaintiff’s experts were deposed, plaintiff agreed to settle the case for less than $5000.
