News & Publications

On Friday, April 27, 2017, the Virginia Supreme Court decided Manu v. GEICO Casualty Company, Record No. 160852, 2017 Va. Lexis 70 (Va. April 27, 2017), a "bad faith" opinion significant to insurers that issue family automobile policies in Virginia.

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. 

By: James M. Snyder, Of Counsel, Litigation Practice Group

When a new case first comes in from one of my clients, there are certain pieces of information that facilitate my 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 my desk. Here is what I am looking for right away:

By: Michael H. Gladstone, Director, Litigation Practice Group

Actions in litigation ought to be, and these days are, regularly tested by insurers, TPAs and direct hire corporate clients under a cost/benefit analysis.  A proposed action or tactic must justify itself to be client approved.   Not all pleas, motions or expert hires turn out as hoped, but there must be some prospect of substantive return on the lawyer, client and witness/consultant investment to warrant going forward.  I recently observed an attorney in a protracted civil litigation matter take actions which neither I, nor any of my clients, would have approved.  No beneficial result was achieved by the actions, except only an increase in attorney work for all involved in the case.