Successfully navigating the court process
I have also handled a number of matters in the area of general civil trial and appellate practice. These include resolution of claims by settlement, trial to the court without a jury, jury trial verdicts and handling matters on appeal. Listed below are examples of some of these achievements:
HBI Corp. v. Jiminez, et al., and Ticor Title Insurance Company: Contractor’s suit against homeowner for breach of contract and against title company escrow agent for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the construction of a new home. The offer at trial from both defendants was $0. Case was tried to St. Louis County jury, which entered verdicts in favor of contractor and against homeowner in the amount of $16,000 and in favor of contractor and against escrow agent in the amount of $24,000. Homeowner satisfied judgment, and title insurance escrow agent appealed. Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed the judgment. HBI Corp v. Jiminez, et al., 803 S.W.2d 100 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990).
Maria Kilmer, et al. v. Hui Chan Mun, et al., 17 S.W.3d 545 (MO.Sup.Ct. 2000). See synopsis under “Dram Shop” listed above.
Ruby Phillips, et al. v. Charles Bowden, et al.: Suit by seller of condominium in Captiva, Florida for declaratory judgment seeking to declare sale contract null and void, and counterclaim by my client buyers for specific performance to force seller to proceed with sale of condominium unit. After summary judgment was entered against my client buyers, case was appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District, which reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and sent the case back to the trial level. See, Phillips v. Bowden, 949 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App. E.D. 1997).
Reidelberger v. Hussman Refrigerator Co., 135 S.W.3d 431 (Mo.App. E.D. 2004), see synopsis under “Workers’ Compensation Claims” listed above.
State ex rel. Brown v. Dickerson, 136 S.W.3d 539 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004), Petition for Writ of Prohibition seeking to prohibit trial court from forcing personal injury plaintiff to provide information regarding her complete medical history from birth. I argued that such information was overbroad and privileged since it was not restricted to the parts of the body claimed to be injured in the underlying law suit. The Western District Court of Appeals agreed and made permanent its preliminary Writ of Prohibition restraining the trial judge from forcing my client to provide the requested medical information. click here for article
Rosalyn Strait v. Integram St. Louis Seating and Second Injury Fund 236 S.W.3d 121 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007)
Strait v. Treasurer of Missouri 257 S.W.3d 600 (Mo.banc 2008)
Click here for YouTube video of oral argument before Missouri Supreme Court (beginning at 6:40)
See workers’ compensation appeals described in synopsis under “Workers’ Compensation Claims” listed above.
Lester Nokes, et al., v. HMSHost USA LLC, et al., 353 S.W.3d 6 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011), see synopsis under “Dram Shop” listed above.
Jacqueline Brown v. Massman Construction Co. and Travelers Indemnity Co. of America 427 S.W.3d. 325 (Mo.App. E.D. 2014)
See synopsis under “Workers’ Compensation Claims” listed above.
David Wright. v. Treasurer of the State of MissouriÂ Â 484 S.W.3d.Â 56 (Mo.App. E.D. 2015)
See synopsis under âWorkersâ Compensation Claimsâ listed above.
Vera Worley v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company 558 S.W.3d. 536 (Mo.App. E.D. 2018).Â Plaintiffâs claim for underinsured motorist (âUIMâ) benefits on her automobile insurance policy seeking the full amount of her underinsured motorist limit of coverage totaling $100,000.00 after recovery of the tort feasorâs (other driver) liability insurance policy limits of $50,000.00.Â Cornerstone National Insurance Company claimed a $50,000.00 credit against its UIM policy limits, and argued that it only owed plaintiff $50,000.00.Â The trial court agreed with Cornerstone and entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $50,000.00.Â On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reversed the trial courtâs decision and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $100,000.00 due to an ambiguity in the UIM policy language promising to pay plaintiff âup to $100,000.00,â when that could never happen if Cornerstone was entitled to a reduction of those limits by payments under a tort feasorâs liability insurance policy.
Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves specialist designations. Further, past results afford no guarantee of future results, and every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.
To schedule a free consultation in myÂ downtown office, call my office at 314-721-2060 or contact me onlineÂ today.