Sentences with phrase «defense of products liability»

In our New York Downtown office, our attorneys handle matters involving commercial litigation, real estate litigation, insurance coverage litigation, insurance regulation, domestic and international insurance services, and the defense of products liability, toxic tort and constructions claims.

Since joining the firm, Jon has also been extensively involved in the defense of products liability and toxic tort claims.

He has also served as National Coordinating Liability Counsel for a major international insurance company with reference to the defense of products liability claims involving thousands of individual claimants and several class actions consolidated in Federal Multi District Litigation.

John G. Browning is the managing partner of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, L.L.P., in Dallas, where he handles civil litigation in state and federal courts in areas ranging from employment and intellectual property to commercial cases and defense of products liability, professional liability, media law, and general negligence matters.

In addition, Rebecca has been extensively involved in the defense of products liability claims, including representing fitness equipment and medical device manufacturers.

Her practice includes the defense of product liability actions, including those involving pharmaceutical and vehicular products, among others, the prosecution and defense of negligence actions, including malpractice actions, the defense of toxic tort and environmental actions, the representation of creatives and entertainment companies in contract negotiations, contractual disputes, and other disputes, and the representation of employers in labor matters.

Since joining the firm, Jon has also been extensively involved in the defense of product liability and toxic tort claims.

His practice focuses primarily on the defense of product liability, toxic tort, and False Claims Act cases.

David has also represented a national retailer in defense of product liability claims following a highly publicized national product recall and has defended product designers, manufacturers, and distributors in litigated cases involving home medical devices, industrial equipment, household fixtures, maritime products and commercial vehicle components.

We litigate all kinds of disputes, including the defense of product liability claims against aircraft, engine, and parts manufacturers; and air carriers.

Represented a major chemical supplier in defense of product liability claim and pursuit of indemnity after a major distribution center explosion destroying the premises in the DFW area

Defense of product liability cases (medical devices, car seats, televisions, food and consumer goods)

Not exact matches

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

It's common for retailers to require their suppliers to have a product liability policy explained in the first scenario above because if a product fails as a result of a manufacturing flaw or design flaw, they want to make sure there is a layer of protection between the manufacturer or importer and themselves and that their supplier will be able to handle the financial responsibilities of a product failure including paying any fines or legal defense costs.

About Blog This publication offers insight and commentary regarding the defense of pharmaceutical and medical device product liability litigation.

About Blog This publication offers insight and commentary regarding the defense of pharmaceutical and medical device product liability litigation.

In June 2008, Lightfoot tried a products liability case to a defense jury verdict on behalf of CNH America in the Circuit Court of Marshall County, Alabama.

The firm's Alaska products liability defense attorneys will determine the most effective course of action to handle each case.

She focuses her practice on complex business litigation and arbitration, including class action defense, breach of contract, product liability, and fraud.

For dedicated Alaska products liability defense attorneys, trust Matthews & Zahare, P.C. to deliver quality representation in the field of products liability law.

Her principal areas of practice include employment law, professional licensing, insurance coverage, bad faith litigation, product liability, medical malpractice defense, and commercial litigation.

Main areas of work The firm's main areas of practice include business and commercial litigation, corporate, criminal defense, employment and labor law, financial restructuring and creditors» rights, government affairs, intellectual property, products liability and real property and environmental.

Professional Associations Monroe County Bar Association, Member New York State Bar Association, Chairman: Torts, Insurance, and Compensation Law Section (2003 - 2004) NYSBA Automobile Liability Committee Chairman (1991 - 1995) NYSBA House of Delegates, Delegate (1999 - 2004) New York State Trial Lawyers Association Risk and Insurance Management Society (2007 - present) Council on Litigation Management (2008 - present); Chairman, Products Liability Conference (2010 - 2013) New York Editorial Board, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company (1993 - 1995) Defense Research Institute (2000 - present) The National Fire Protection Association, Member The American Society for Metals, Member

Mr. Cuff focuses his practice in the areas of products and general liability defense.

Firm partner Bradley C. Nahrstadt concentrates on the defense of Chicago product liability claims in both state and federal courts, as well as handling matters at the appellate level.

Raymond Lyons is a partner of Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis, Ltd. and a member of the firm's product liability, construction, transportation and tort defense practice groups.

His practice covers a range of litigation, including commercial, class action defense, product liability, mass tort, environmental, trade secret, insurance coverage, and real property title disputes in state and federal courts.

Mr. Lyons serves as vice-chair of the product liability group of the Primerus Defense Institute.

In the Huntsville office, our attorneys have special knowledge and experience in the areas of Product Liability, Auto and Truck Accidents, Medical Malpractice, and Criminal Defense.

Matthew D. Green is a member of Sands Anderson's Litigation Group and focuses his practice on commercial litigation, professional liability defense, product liability, and insurance coverage.

Matthews & Zahare, P.C.'s team of reputable Alaska products liability defense lawyers carefully analyze each products liability case and form sound strategies to efficiently manage the client's case.

Mike Colavecchio represents clients in all areas of casualty defense, including medical malpractice, construction accidents, premises liability, products liability, municipal liability, legal malpractice, copyright infringement and vehicular negligence.

An experienced Alaska products liability defense lawyer from Matthews & Zahare, P.C. can help navigate the details of Anchorage products liability law.

At the time of our calls most juniors were in the large business & commercial litigation (BCL) group; a couple were in product liability; and there was one apiece in criminal defense, employment & labor law, and government affairs.

Serve as national trial and coordinating counsel for a leading manufacturer of food equipment systems in product liability matters, including the defense of product designs for meat grinders, mixers, slicers, saws, tenderizers and deep fat fryers.

Alan Carroll (A.C.) Nash focuses his practice on the defense of claims made and suits brought against insureds and businesses in product, automobile, commercial, liquor liability, construction and premises liability matters.

Prior to joining TLR, Jami practiced commercial litigation for two years with Banowsky, Betz & Levine, P.C., in Dallas, and spent four years with Hartline, Dacus, Barger, Dreyer & Kern, L.L.P., also of Dallas, working primarily in products liability defense litigation.

In a complex products liability action involving alleged PCB contamination of a state office building, the Appellate Practice Group joined forces with litigation counsel to convert a $ 60 million judgment to a defense verdict for a large, multinational company.

Kelsey's practice focuses primarily on civil litigation, including defense of personal injury and product liability claims as well as representation in real property and commercial disputes.

He handles all types of defense cases with a particular emphasis on products liability and toxic torts involving aircraft, chemicals, consumer products, construction equipment, durable medical equipment, electrical equipment exercise equipment, food and beverages, HVAC equipment, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and OTC products, swimming pools and diving equipment, and a host of other products and complicated liability situations.

Starting with a strong foundation in construction, general liability defense, transportation and products liability, WSHB has moved into a diverse range of practice areas, including environmental, toxic tort, employment, professional liability and medical malpractice, subrogation, insurance and commercial litigation.

During his 21 - year legal career, Mr. Goldberg has litigated hundreds of cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States involving claims of retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, fraud, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, as well as commercial contract disputes, civil RICO, ERISA, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, corporate governance disputes, minority shareholder disputes, partnership disputes, Madoff counseling and defense, advancement and indemnification proceedings, whistleblower actions (SOX and CEPA), executive compensation counseling, litigation, and arbitration, international litigation and arbitration, antitrust litigation and arbitration, products liability litigation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, and securities fraud.

In the Dothan office, our attorneys have special experience and knowledge in the areas of Product Liability, Auto and Truck Accidents, Medical Malpractice, and Criminal Defense.

The blog is written by John Sear, a product - liability defense partner in the Minneapolis office of the law firm Bowman and Brooke.

Represented an exotic car manufacturer in obtaining a defense verdict of no liability and no defect in jury trial involving product liability, breach of warranty, consumer statute, and fraud claims.

Attorneys in our Class Action Practice represent «household name» corporations in defense of consumer and false advertising class actions; Big Four accounting firms and corporate issuers in securities class actions; companies who have been accused of improperly disclosing customer data; employers alleged to have violated labor and employment laws; and industrial manufacturers in products liability class and mass tort actions, among others.

Elizabeth Abraham is a litigation associate of Lipe Lyons Murphy Nahrstadt & Pontikis Ltd. who focuses her practice on the defense of premises liability, construction liability, transportation liability, unsafe worksite and employer liability, and product liability claims.

Brian Brown manages, supervises and handles the defense litigation cases involving automobile negligence, products liability, premises liability including lead - based paint poisoning, civil assaults, construction accidents, insurance coverage, insurance fraud and claims of negligent security, including ATMs.

The opinion provides a ground breaking analysis of the MDA preemption defense and explains why the plaintiffs could never prove they would have succeeded on their underlying product liability claim necessary to sustain a viable legal malpractice suit.