News & Publications

Virginia code amendments since 2004 limit Plaintiff “venue-shopping” as they align venue options with the common sense view that a lawsuit should be filed where the underlying action occurred.

By: Jim Snyder

By: Jim Snyder

TBIs have become the modern day whiplash. Increasingly, we see claimed head injuries and alleged traumatic brain injuries as often as classic soft tissue injuries. It used to be, when we received a rear-end case to defend, we knew the claim would involve upper back and neck sprains/strains. Now, when a case lands in our office, chances are good the plaintiff is going to make some claim of brain dysfunction as a result of the accident. Whether it is a severe collision with obvious head trauma or a parking lot bump where the plaintiff barely nods, we know TBI will likely be an issue somewhere down the road.

During a two month stretch this past summer, our team aggressively attacked and resolved four such cases (see our infographic above). Each case was grossly over-inflated and the defense needed to be aggressive. Used collectively, these three strategies dramatically

By: Jim Snyder

When a new case first comes in, certain pieces of information facilitate our initial investigation. Of course, when a lawsuit is the first notice of loss, everyone is starting the defense with little to no information to pass along. However, in most instances, the client has received some essential information before the claim becomes a lawsuit and finds its way to us.

Immediate access to these three things helps us attack the case:

1) Accurate contact information for the named insured and the tortfeasor, if different. This would include at least a phone number and a physical address. Most files arrive with the name and address of the named insured, but being able to pick

In Virginia, there are certain advantages to defending a case in federal court. First, in Virginia state court, motions for summary judgment may not be based on deposition testimony. For attorneys seeking a case-dispositive ruling prior to trial, the state court evisceration of the summary judgment process thwarts such efforts. Second, the disclosure and qualification process for expert witnesses are far more stringent in federal court. Through robust expert disclosure requirements and the application of Daubert to experts who are properly disclosed, Virginia federal courts place a premium on well thought out and executed expert strategies.

Knowing most defendants would prefer to remove a claim to federal court, plaintiffs frequently attempt to include a non-diverse employee in a premises liability suit to prevent

By: James M. Snyder, Director, Litigation Practice Group

Several years ago, I was representing an herbicide manufacturer against a toxic tort lawsuit. The claim was that our product caused substantial damage to the crop, instead of the underlying target foliage. The Complaint named my client and several other co-defendants, each of which played some role in the manufacturing, purchase and/or application of the herbicide.