Important Case Results
- Insurance law (Thibodeaux v. J M Drilling, L.L.C., No. 21-30543, 2022 WL 3149210, 5th Cir. 2022) – An insurance company hired us to represent one of the parties in a complex case that involved an excess liability policy and a combination of excluded and non-excluded causation factors. In a ruling favorable to our client, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s finding that the excess liability coverage applied.
- Employment and civil rights law (Marchman v. Crawford, No. 17-30200, 726 F. App’x 978, 5th Cir. 2018) – Another attorney hired our lawyer to defend him in a high-profile employment and civil rights case involving several state judges. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against our client and other defendants. The judge who brought the lawsuit appealed. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, which was a favorable outcome for our client.
- Personal injury defense (Perrone v. Rogers, No. 2017-0509, 234 So. 3d 153, La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) – Our lawyer represented a defendant in a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
- Legal malpractice defense (Cupit o/b/o Cupit v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 2017-918, 240 So. 3d 993, La. App. 3 Cir. 2018) – Our lawyer represented several local attorneys who had been sued for legal malpractice involving their handling of a medical malpractice claim. Our clients and other attorneys involved in the medical malpractice suit had determined that they didn’t have enough evidence to pursue the medical malpractice lawsuit. The plaintiff in the medical malpractice claim then sued our clients for legal malpractice. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against our client, and the appellate court affirmed that dismissal.
- Attorney sanctions (Snavely v. Ace Pain Mgmt., LLC, No. 2017-237, 258 So. 3d 3, La. App. 3 Cir. 2017) – Our lawyer represented a local attorney who had litigated complex medical malpractice claims. The defendant in those claims sought sanctions against our client for filing multiple claims against the same party. In a ruling favorable to our client, the trial court dismissed the request for sanctions because it wasn’t filed in a timely manner. The appellate court affirmed that dismissal.