In March 2014, in Hutchison v. Four B Corp d/b/a Hen House, Bob Luder obtained a defense verdict from a Johnson County, Kansas jury following trial. The case involved a plaintiff who slipped and fell on a walkway of the defendant’s grocery store. The plaintiff claimed that the store had failed to treat or remove ice on a walkway in front of the store, and caused the right shoulder fracture the plaintiff sustained in the fall. The plaintiff claimed over $75,000 in damages, but the jury found no fault on the part of the store.
In Varsalona v. Ortiz, 2014 WL 5139476 (Missouri Court of Appeals, Oct. 14, 2014) John Weist successfully defended on appeal a jury verdict in favor of the defendant on a claim that the defendant’s vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. Following the jury verdict for the defendant the plaintiff appealed asserting various errors by the trial court, including failing to instruct the jury at trial on the “rear-end collision doctrine.” The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with the arguments made by L&W that the rear-end collision doctrine did not apply under the facts despite the plaintiff’s claim that his vehicle was rear-ended.
In September 2014, in Morrow v. Four B Corp. d/b/a Price Chopper, Bob Luder received a defense verdict from a Wyandotte County, Kansas jury following trial. The case involved a plaintiff who slipped and fell at a Price Chopper store while shopping and claimed that the store was negligent in maintaining a floor display on which the plaintiff got her foot caught, fell, and fractured a vertebrae. The plaintiff claimed medical expenses of over $60,000 relating to the injury. The jury found no fault on the part of the store represented by L&W.
In Kaskutas v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 438 S.W.3d 526 (Mo.App. Aug. 19, 2014), Bob Luder successfully defended on appeal a prior jury verdict he obtained in favor of Allstate in which the City of St. Louis Circuit Court ruled at trial that Allstate’s policy owed no underinsured motorist benefits to the plaintiff. The primary legal issue in the case involved a question of whether Missouri or Illinois law applied to the coverage being sought. Key to the result was the trial court’s finding that, under the facts, the principal location of the insured risk was in Illinois, not Missouri. As a result the plaintiff was not permitted to stack UIM coverages such that no coverage was owed by Allstate.