We represented home owners in a highly contested and aggressively litigated product defect case associated with “EIFS” cladding installed on their residence. The manufacturer of the product contended that our clients’ claims were precluded by the terms of a class action settlement agreement. We obtained a favorable ruling from the court of appeals that our clients’ claims were not barred by the class action settlement. As a result of the favorable ruling from the court of appeals (upheld by the Supreme Court of Ohio), we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement to resolve the matter.

We represented an international motor vehicle manufacturer in a product liability personal injury action in Ohio. The Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle’s airbag system failed to deploy, and further asserted this alleged defect resulted in enhanced injuries arising from an automobile accident. By effectively developing persuasive expert witness testimony, we were able to reach a favorable settlement through a mediation session.

We defended a large trucking company against product liability claims relating to the death of child. The child was struck by a waste-hauling truck manufactured in part by our client, and the plaintiffs alleged that the mirrors on the truck were insufficient in providing the driver with a clear rearward view. The garbage truck body manufacturer was named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit. We obtained a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of our client in state court.

Defending manufacturer of RV refrigerators in product liability cases.

Represented multiple home builders in claims throughout Ohio on multiple legal issues, lawsuits, mediations, arbitrations, liens and supplier disputes.

Competition is fierce in the business world, and companies need to stay vigilant in ensuring that there is a level playing ground. When a fleet maintenance company in Louisville alleged that Insight Communications gave its fleet work to a former employee who was providing them kickbacks, they enlisted Dinsmore’s help. We represented Preferred Automotive Services, who had provided fleet maintenance services to Insight Communications before a former Preferred employee left to start his own fleet business. We alleged that Insight moved their fleet business to the former employee in exchange for free repairs on Insight managers’ personal vehicles, as well as cash and gift cards. During the course of the case, Insight hired an outside attorney to investigate the kickback allegations, but declined to release results of the report. Following a nine-day trial in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, a $2.7 million verdict was awarded to our client. In a separate lawsuit, our client also reached a settlement with the former employee.

We advised the client with respect to all aspects of the case, which was originally filed in State Court in St. Louis, then dismissed and re-filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in NY following the client's Chapter 11 filing. The U.S. District Court withdrew the reference and assumed jurisdiction of the claims. We litigated these claims for a fraction of the cost that would have been incurred by New York counsel, and achieved a very favorable settlement for the client.  The settlement  was approved by the Bankruptcy Court without objection from any constituency in the bankruptcy. Following approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, all claims were dismissed.

A significant and complex engagement in the wake of Ohio's savings and loan crisis in 1985. One of the state's largest savings banks, Home State, collapsed as a consequence of a massive fraud involving the fictitious trading by the bank in government securities through reverse repurchase agreements through a small Florida-based securities dealer. The collapse brought with it the collapse of the Ohio Deposit Guaranty Fund, the failure of numerous smaller savings institutions, and runs on many institutions.

Through passage of special legislation, the Ohio Attorney General was empowered to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor having criminal jurisdiction over the entirety of the state's savings and loans. Dinsmore & Shohl partner, Lawrence A. Kane, Jr. was named Special Prosecutor. He, in turn, assembled a staff led by his chief deputy, Dinsmore & Shohl partner, Mark A. Vander Laan, who had principal responsibility for presentation to a special grand jury, the litigation of the ensuing prosecution, and argument of the two cases which reached the Ohio Supreme Court, which in turn affirmed convictions of Home State's principals.

Over the course of five years, the team of Dinsmore attorneys, with the assistance of experienced former prosecutors, academics, and investigators assembled cases that led to the convictions and imprisonment of the owner of Home State (a former Ambassador to Switzerland), two of its former presidents, all of the surviving principals of ESM Government Securities, Inc., and the chief outside accountant for ESM; Restitution orders in excess of $100,000,000 were secured through the prosecutions. The four-month trial against Home State's owner and its two former presidents was the longest in Hamilton County, Ohio history.

Parties to corporate litigation settled their suit through partial sale, partial spinoff of key property in a stock purchase transaction.

We successfully defended our client, a financial institution holding USAID grant funds. The federal government filed a multi-million dollar claim against our client and the account holder for allegedly wrongfully transferring funds received from a USAID grant to the account holder. The case resulted in our client not being liable for funds which it had transferred pursuant to a request from the account holder.

Amicus representation in United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concerning whether the IRS appropriately charged heavy truck excise taxes on heavy-truck chassis, when the vehicles were specially designed for off-highway use, even though they could be operated on highways.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented The Procter & Gamble Company in a lawsuit against a former employee for violation of The Procter & Gamble Non-Competition Agreement and the Ohio Trade Secrets Act.  The Court of Appeals adopted the doctrine of inevitable use and upheld the validity of The Procter & Gamble Non-Competition Agreement.

Plaintiff claimed complex construction contract was misleading and did not fairly advise Plaintiff of site existing conditions which increased Plaintiff's costs to build the project.