Grace, Cosgrove and Schirm has had consistent, substantial success at all levels of our practice. Summaries of some of these successes follow:

State National Insurance Co. v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC; Sterling Truck Corporation, Detroit Diesel Corporation and Carmenita Truck Center (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. VC 051002) On August 4, 2009, Phil Cosgrove obtained a nonsuit on behalf of all defendants in this product liability action brought by attorney Michael Martin of Grimm, Vranges, McCormick and Graham on behalf of State National Insurance Company. (SNIC). SNIC claimed, through its expert William Guentzler, Ph.D., that the fuel system of a 2006 Sterling LT 9500 car hauler was defective and caused a fire which resulted in the destruction of the car hauler and 5 of the 9 Nissan vehicles it was carrying. The defendants contended the fuel system was not defective, that there were no other fuel leaks or fires caused by the type of failure claimed by William Guentzler and the incident was caused by the negligent inspection or repairs that SNIC's insured, Hansen & Adkins, performed only 42 miles before the fire. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, after the cross-examination of William Guentzler, Judge Thomas I. McKnew, Jr. granted the defense motion for nonsuit, finding there was no evidence to support plaintiff's claim of defect and that the opinions of William Guentzler were based on speculation. Back to Top Phillips v. Chrysler LLC (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. BCV 07184) On January 16, 2008, after nearly a three month trial, Partners Phil Cosgrove and Dommond Lonnie obtained a defense verdict in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries in a rollover accident. The case was brought by attorney Michael Puize, who claimed, through his experts Don Friedman and Dr. Joseph Burton, that the roof of plaintiff's 1993 Grand Cherokee was defective in design, rendering the roof structure susceptible to buckling during a rollover accident. It was asserted the "buckle" intruded into the passenger compartment and struck Ms. Phillips in the head, causing her spinal cord injury. Mr. Puize requested the jury to award $113,500,000.00 in damages. Chrysler claimed the roof was neither defective nor did any claimed "buckling" cause Ms. Phillips' quadripelgia, rather Chrysler asserted plaintiff's paralysis was caused by her head moving to and striking the roof (and in effect the ground itself) early in the rollover sequence, before any meaningful damage/deformation of the roof structure occurred. For more information, click here. Back to Top Domel v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. PC030045Y) On May 14, 2007, after nearly a month long bifurcated trial, Phil Cosgrove obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries sustained in a rollover accident. The case was brought by attorney Dennis Elber, who claimed, through his experts Steve Syson and Peter Francis, that the 2001 Dodge Viper was defective in design, because the vehicle did not have sufficient roof strength and the right rear half shaft axle failed and caused the incident to occur. DaimlerChrysler Corporation claimed that the roof was not defective, the axle broke during the rollover sequence and that plaintiff’s drinking and speeding caused him to lose control of the vehicle. Back to Top Khoperia v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 334291) On September 19, 2006, after a three week trial, Phil Cosgrove obtained a defense verdict in a product liability action.  The case was brought by attorney Terrence Butler, who claimed, through his experts Gerald Rosenbluth, William Harrigan and Michael Schulz, that the fuel hose and clamp of a 1991 Chrysler Lebaron was defective in design and caused plaintiff’s burn injuries. DaimlerChrysler Corporation claimed that the fuel hose and clamp were not defective, that there were no other failures of similar clamps in other Lebaron vehicles and the incident was caused by plaintiff's negligent conduct and misuse of the vehicle by pulling off the fuel hose while the engine was cranked by plaintiff's ex-wife. Back to Top Taylor v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIN 042095) Barry Schirm successfully obtained an order granting summary judgment against four plaintiffs' product liability claims that alleged the seat belts in a 2003 Town & Country minivan were defective and caused the occupants to sustain enhanced injuries.  Plaintiffs' alleged the vehicle was equipped with "GEN 3" seat belts, which they contended were defectively designed and inadvertently released during the accident. Plaintiffs claimed the defective seat belts caused the death of Eula Mae Gladney and serious personal injuries sustained by three other occupants, Richard Taylor, Johnnie Taylor and Dorthia Hefner. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for punitive damages against DaimlerChrysler. DaimlerChrysler Corporation filed two motions for summary judgment against plaintiff's claims. The first motion attacked the element of defect to plaintiffs' claims, based on plaintiffs' discovery admissions and declaration from a DaimlerChrysler engineer. The second motion attacked the element of causation and enhancement of injuries, based on plaintiff's failure to preserve the allegedly defective seat belts and a declaration from a biomechanical engineer. In opposition to the motions, plaintiffs submitted declarations from an expert who opined the seat belts were defective and caused plaintiffs' enhanced injuries. DaimlerChrysler's reply briefs moved to strike plaintiffs' expert's declarations on the grounds he was unqualified and his opinions were speculative since plaintiff failed to preserve the allegedly defective seat belts for inspection. On April 28, 2006, Judge Michael Anello of the San Diego County Superior Court issued orders granting DaimlerChrysler's motion to strike plaintiffs' expert's declarations, and granting summary judgment against all the plaintiffs' claims. Back to Top Dannenfelser v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (370 F.Supp.2d1091 (D.Haw.2005) The Firm successfully obtained a published decision in Hawaii that allows a defendant in a crashworthiness case to introduce evidence of a plaintiff’s negligence and apportion fault to a plaintiff for their negligence in causing the accident. Plaintiff's claims were based on an allegedly defective air bag that did not deploy during the accident and caused plaintiff to sustain enhanced injuries when her face struck the steering wheel. Plaintiff contended her negligence in causing the accident was irrelevant and DaimlerChrysler should not be allowed to apportion fault to her for causing the accident, since she was only suing for the enhanced injuries caused by the second collision inside the vehicle as a result of the air bag's failure to deploy during the accident. Since there was no controlling law in Hawaii on this issue, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment to preclude any comparative negligence defense, relying principally on a case form Florida that held a plaintiff's fault for causing the accident is not relevant to a crashworthiness claim. Based on cases from a majority of jurisdictions, including California, that hold a defendant in a crashworthiness case is entitled to apportion fault to a plaintiff for their negligence in causing the accident, we were able to convince the court that this is the better reasoned rule. After substantial briefing and oral argument, Chief Judge David Ezra of the United States District Court in Hawaii issued a published opinion on March 31, 2005 that agreed with our position on this issue. As a result, we were then able to favorably resolve the case, since the evidence we developed in discovery established plaintiff negligently caused the accident by driving while intoxicated, exceeding the speed limit and crashing into a pole on the side of the road. Back to Top Phillips v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation (San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. BCV 07184) Phil Cosgrove successfully obtained an order granting summary adjudication against a plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in a product liability action for quadriplegia injuries in a rollover accident. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was based on the contention that the vehicle's roof structure was defectively designed in conscious disregard of safety. The firm moved for summary adjudication against this claim, based on testing that confirmed the roof structure was designed in a manner greatly exceeding the strength requirements of FMVSS 216. After several rounds of briefing, Judge John Vander Feer issued an order on August 18, 2005 that granted summary adjudication in favor of DaimlerChrysler and dismissed plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. On October 6, 2005, the firm convinced the court to deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and/or motion for new trial. Back to Top Blair v. General Motors Corp (San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. 319045) The Firm successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation against a plaintiff's wrongful death product liability action. Plaintiff alleged claims for design defect and failure to warn that were based on plaintiff's decedent's exposure to asbestos while replacing brakes on General Motors' vehicles. Plaintiff alleged the brake systems were defective since they required asbestos-containing brake linings and General Motors failed to warn of the dangers posed by asbestos-containing brake linings. We moved for summary judgment on the ground plaintiff was not exposed to asbestos-containing brake linings manufactured by General Motors and no duty could be imposed on General Motors for alleged injuries caused by asbestos exposure from brake linings that were designed, manufactured and installed by other entities. After several rounds of briefing, the court issued an order granting General Motors' motion for summary judgment in January of 2005. Back to Top Defer v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation The Firm's appellate department successfully argued an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, to secure the affirmance of a district court's order dismissing a plaintiff's product liability action against DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Defer v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 39397, involved issues concerning a plaintiff's pre-litigation duty to preserve physical evidence that is relevant to his claim against the defendant. The plaintiff's action against DaimlerChrysler arose out of a single vehicle accident that was allegedly caused by a defective airbag system that inadvertently deployed while plaintiff was driving his vehicle. After the accident, plaintiff sold and transferred title to the vehicle to his insurer, without any request or instruction to preserve the vehicle for any subsequent claim. The vehicle was later junked and dismantled, without the allegedly defective airbag system or any other components of the vehicle preserved. In the trial court, the firm filed a motion for a terminating sanction, arguing the plaintiff had a duty to preserve the vehicle and the allegedly defective airbag system, and that his failure to do so unduly prejudiced DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's product liability action. The Nevada Supreme Court then affirmed the terminating sanction and dismissal of the plaintiff's action, holding the plaintiff had a duty to preserve evidence that he knew or should have known was relevant to his product liability claim. The Nevada Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiff's assertion that a manufacturer has a co-equal duty to preserve evidence that is not within its control. Back to Top Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin Phil Cosgrove successfully obtained an affirmance of a trial court's order granting a motion to quash that was filed on behalf of two individual officers of a corporation on the ground personal jurisdiction could not be exercised over them in California. The opinion by Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District in California, in Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin, Appellate Case No. E030927, is reported at 2002 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 8867. The case arose out of an accident that occurred in California on January 29, 2001, in which the plaintiffs sustained severe injuries while using a product manufactured by Sta-Put Corporation. The plaintiffs filed suit in California against Illinois Tool Works, a Delaware company that acquired Sta-Put Corporation several years before the accident. Illinois Tool Works then filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against two former officers of Sta-Put Corporation, who previously owned and sold 100% of Sta-Put Corporation's stock to Illinois Tool Works. Illinois Tool Works asserted personal jurisdiction against the former officers of Sta-Put Corporation based on the indemnity and defense provisions in the parties' stock purchase agreement, and based on the California activities engaged in by Sta-Put Corporation. A motion to quash was filed against Illinois Tool Works' cross-complaint, arguing that the former officers of Sta-Put Corporation did not have sufficient minimum contacts with California in their individual capacities to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. After multiple rounds of briefing, the trial court granted the motion to quash, which was affirmed on appeal by Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District. The Court of Appeal agreed with the arguments presented in our Respondents' Brief, holding that Due Process principles precluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction in California against the individual officers based on Sta-Put Corporation's purported contacts with California. The Court of Appeal also held that the purported defense and indemnity provisions of the stock purchase agreement could not be used to exercise personal jurisdiction over the individuals, since it was not executed in California and there was no showing that the individuals purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of California law by entering into the agreement. Back to Top Dozier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America The Firm successfully argued an appeal before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, obtaining an affirmance of a trial court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' action and denying their motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473. The firm represented General Motors Corporation and Honeywell International Inc. in the case, Dozier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America, Appellate Case No. B162313, reported at 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 187. The case involved a wrongful death action, in which the decedent was allegedly diagnosed with lung cancer in April of 1999 and died on May 17, 1999 as a result of alleged exposure to the defendants' and other entities' asbestos-containing products. The firm filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground the plaintiffs' action was barred under the one year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.2. After the trial court granted the firm's motion, the plaintiffs then sought relief under the discretionary provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and requested an opportunity to file a proposed amended complaint that plead facts under the delayed discovery rule in order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order. The Court of Appeal's decision agreed with the arguments presented in the firm's Respondents' Brief, holding that the plaintiffs failed to present a legally satisfactory excuse to warrant relief and the plaintiffs also failed to act with reasonable diligence in filing the motion for relief. The Court of Appeal even held that the trial "court would have abused its discretion if it had granted relief from the judgment, because there was no excusable error justifying relief under the discretionary provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473." Back to Top Socorro Reid v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation On January 28, 2004, the Honorable Brian Gasdia of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Socorro Reid v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Case No. VC039577. The Reid accident occurred on April 24, 2002, in Huntington Park, California. Reid was driving a 2001 Dodge Neon when she rear-ended a Southern California Gas utility truck at an unknown speed. As a result of this incident, plaintiff claimed the air bag in her vehicle was defective in that it failed to deploy. Judge Gasdia ruled as a matter of law that DaimlerChrysler Corporation presented expert declarations that there was nothing diagnostically wrong with the air bag system of the subject vehicle and it operated as designed. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to support their claims of defect or that plaintiff's injuries were the result of the subject air bag failing to deploy. Back to Top Recent Appointment Barry Schirm has been appointed by Dennis Thelen, President of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC), to serve as a committee chair on the Product Liability Substantive Law Committee of the ASCDC for 2005. Back to Top Judges Pro Tempore Barry Schirm and Dommond Lonnie recently served as judges pro tempore/settlement officers for the Los Angeles Superior Court. Their volunteer services were provided through a program sponsored by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel.  Phil Cosgrove has recently served as a CRASH settlement officer in the Glendale branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Back to Top