Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell lawyers have prosecuted appeals and drafted writs in state and federal appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in all substantive areas of the law. We have particular experience with appeals involving product liability, professional liability, commercial, franchise, employment, and insurance matters.
Following is a description of some recent appeals handled by WTO lawyers:
In a purported class action, Allstate Insurance was alleged to have failed to make certain statutorily mandated disclosures associated with automobile underinsured and uninsured motorist (UM/UIM) policies when it sold umbrella policies to the purported class. Allstate successfully defended the action in the Denver District Court when it obtained summary judgment. On appeal, the intermediate court affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. Based on class allegations, the damage claims, which included free, lifetime benefits for auto accident victims who had purchased umbrella policies, were alleged to be between $10MM and $100MM. Following oral argument, on June 21, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision in Allstate's favor, concluding that the offer of UM/UIM coverage is not required when selling umbrella coverage.
In late 2007, WTO argued in the Third Circuit one of two companion cases that were the first of their kind to be argued in a United States Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision published in 2008 in McNellis v. Pfizer Inc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held the plaintiff's product liability claims against an antidepressant made by Pfizer to be preempted. This case drew extensive amicus curiae briefs on both sides. It is the first appellate decision to find preemption in a case involving an antidepressant medication.
in 2008, WTO successfully represented the defendant-appellee product manufacturer in a case in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in which the plaintiff-appellant sought to strike the company's answer as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The same court had affirmed discovery sanctions against the company earlier in the same case before WTO's involvement, but this time embraced WTO's argument that there had been no additional discovery violation at all, much less any warranting an extreme sanction.
In December 2007, Malcolm Wheeler filed in the United States Supreme Court an amicus curiae brief in support of Exxon Corporation in the Exxon Valdez case. The Court's opinion generally followed the analysis provided in his brief.
In 2007, WTO won a reversal and new trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an automobile product liability case originally tried by another firm in 1998 that resulted in a punitive damages verdict of $150 million. The first jury's compensatory-damages award and finding of oppression or malice had been affirmed on appeal, and the case was remanded solely on what amount of punitive damages should be awarded. WTO was asked to represent the company on remand. WTO persuaded the second jury to award only one-third of the amount awarded in the initial trial. WTO then represented the company on appeal of that judgment. The Ninth Circuit found numerous errors in the trial court's rulings and jury instructions, reversed, and sent the case back for yet another trial solely on the amount of punitive damages.