We represented a national equipment supplier suspected of anti-trust violations. The government’s anti-trust division believed the company was colluding with competitors to pre-determine bids for certain opportunities. We conducted a three year investigation, interviewing more than 60 sales personnel across the country and reviewing thousands of emails. Ultimately, our report to the Department of Justice resulted in the end of the investigation.

We represented a national assisted living company that suspected a construction manager of creating false invoices for work that was never completed throughout the south and Midwest. We conducted a six month investigation that included witness interviews and analysis of bank deposits, invoices and other documents to prove that the construction manager, who was ultimately prosecuted, had created the false invoices.

Our attorneys represented a Department of Energy contractor in a qui tam suit alleging wide-ranging false claims, conspiracy and retaliation in connection with reporting on environmental, health and safety requirements. The district court dismissed the case in its entirety prior to discovery. After the relator appealed, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal of the qui tam and conspiracy claims and affirmed dismissal of the retaliation count.

Our attorneys defended a contractor against qui tam and retaliation allegations relating to the construction of the external tank on the space shuttle. The relator asserted damages of over $2 billion. The court granted summary judgment for our client on all claims and dismissed the case in its entirety.

Our attorneys represented a government contractor in a qui tam suit brought by two relators alleging fraud and mismanagement in connection with several federal programs. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety without any discovery. The court also enforced a release signed by one of the relators while the case was pending under seal.

Our attorneys represented a Department of Defense contractor in multiple appeals concerning the scope of the FCA’s liability provisions as applied to subcontractors and the effect of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act amendments to the FCA’s liability provisions on pending cases.

Our attorneys represented a defense contractor in a qui tam suit alleging fraudulent government billings relating to unearned employee overtime. The district court granted our motion to dismiss the relator’s FCA claims prior to discovery.

We defeated a qui tam suit alleging fraudulent inducement of a contract alleging misrepresentations relating to the capabilities and characteristics of the contractor’s product. The district court granted summary judgment and ordered the relator and his attorneys to pay our client’s attorneys’ fees and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Our attorneys represented a federal contractor in an intervened FCA lawsuit arising out of multiple qui tam suits alleging that the contractor acted recklessly by failing to oversee and discover the fraudulent activities of one of its suppliers. The attorneys obtained dismissal of one relator under the FCA’s first-to-file rule at both the district court level and in the Fifth Circuit. They also successfully defeated an early motion for summary judgment brought by the Department of Justice on its common law claim premised on an alleged violation of the cost-plus-percentage-of-cost prohibition. After Court denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment, the case settled for a fraction of the Government’s alleged single damages.

At the request of a large insurer, we defended an insured, commercial policyholder-tenant against subrogation claims from a landlord’s insurer who claimed our policyholder shared liability for a vehicle fire on the landlord’s premises. The fire resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fire/smoke damage to the leased premises. There were actually two defendants, the second being the mechanic that our client, the policyholder-tenant, had hired to address electrical issues in the vehicle. Those electrical issues caused the fire, though the co-defendant tried to deny any fault. Accordingly, at the start of the case, we hired a fire causation expert who pinpointed the cause as faulty electrical repairs by the co-defendant. When the co-defendant still denied liability, we hired an auto mechanic expert to address the repairs that were made and the additional steps that should have been taken to prevent the fire. I then took the deposition of the co-defendant’s mechanic, using our expert input to discredit the position of the co-defendant. I also analyzed the level of damages claimed by plaintiff with the help of an adjuster-expert. Our efforts and analysis led to a favorable settlement at mediation in which we were able to effectively exonerate our client and avoid any substantial liability.

Chuck Hertlein and Seth Schwartz have represented Vantage Financial Advisers, a financial advisory firm, in multiple matters including regulatory litigation and claims brought by clients related to investment losses outside of Vantage’s control.

The firm represents a national insurance company in this case. In it, the plaintiff contends the insurer has breached the insurance contract and violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (KMVRA) by seeking an examination under oath (EUO) and delaying a decision on their no-fault claim and before paying certain claims under their Personal Injury Protection coverage of their auto policy until an EUO is taken.

The plaintiff contends that even if an EUO is authorized by a court, the insurer must still pay the PIP claim within 30 days, and if they do not, then they are obligated to pay the claim as well as statutory penalties of 18 percent prejudgment interest and attorneys fees.

The firm represented a national insurance company against a personal injury plaintiff who pursued his own third party bad faith claim against the company as well as first party breach of contract and bad faith claims assigned to him by the insured. The case arose from a tragic car accident. A mine employee who left work allegedly fell asleep after working a double shift, crossed the center line and collided with the accident victim. The mine employee died in the accident, and the plaintiff victim suffered other catastrophic injuries allegedly rendering him unable to work again. He filed suit and subsequently added the mine that employed the tortfeasor as a defendant. He claimed his injuries arose from their negligent supervision of the tortfeasor. The insurer for the mine denied the claim and did not provide a defense, relying upon a total auto exclusion in their CGL policy. Ultimately, the insured assigned its rights against the insurer to the plaintiff and filed suit directly against the insurer. The case ended in a voluntary settlement.

The firm represented the insurer of a foundation repair company that was hired to repair the foundation of Plaintiffs’ home. The home was built on an Eastern Kentucky mountaintop, which had previously been the site of a surface mine. The deed to the property declined any warranty for the condition of the soils on the property. Subsidence began to cause cracking inside and outside the home. The Plaintiff ultimately sued the insured repair company and the insurer denied the claim based on the “subsidence” and “contract” exclusions in the policy. The court ultimately concluded there was coverage under the policy. Thereafter, the insurer defended the claim against the insured and that claim was subsequently settled. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a third party bad faith claim against the insurer. The insurer defended the claim on several grounds, including that the insured’s liability for causing the damage to the home was not “reasonably clear” or “beyond dispute” and as such no bad faith claim could lie against them. The case was settled prior to trial.