Sutter O'Connell AttorneysSutter O'Connell Attorneys https://www.sutter-law.com Fearless Representation. Anywhere. Anytime. Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:19:53 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://www.sutter-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/cropped-sutter-logo-favicon-32x32.png Sutter O'Connell Attorneys https://www.sutter-law.com 32 32 New York State Legislature Moves the Goal Post in Favor of Plaintiffs https://www.sutter-law.com/new-york-state-legislature-moves-the-goal-post-in-favor-of-plaintiffs/ https://www.sutter-law.com/new-york-state-legislature-moves-the-goal-post-in-favor-of-plaintiffs/#respond Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:04:04 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4103 Expansive Disclosure Requirements for Insurance Defendants in New York State May Set a Precedent for the Future of Disclosure Requirements and Insurance Litigation in Your State Insured defendants sued in New York are now required to make early and significant disclosures about insurance coverage. In December 2021, the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, C.P.L.R. 3101, was...

The post New York State Legislature Moves the Goal Post in Favor of Plaintiffs first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Expansive Disclosure Requirements for Insurance Defendants in New York State May Set a Precedent for the Future of Disclosure Requirements and Insurance Litigation in Your State

Insured defendants sued in New York are now required to make early and significant disclosures about insurance coverage. In December 2021, the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, C.P.L.R. 3101, was enacted and subsequently amended in early March 2022. Given New York’s influence on insurance law issues, some of these new requirements may be coming to a state near you.

While originally written to apply to all pending cases, the March amendments limit the impact of the new law to cases filed on or after December 31, 2021. The amendments require the following information to be disclosed  not later than 90 days after a defendant’s answer is served:

  • a complete copy of insurance agreements, including primary, excess and umbrella, and other agreements including self-insurance which relate to the claim being litigated and may be available to satisfy part or all of a judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. However, subject to later revocation, the parties may agree that production of the declaration pages fulfills this requirement;
  • contact information including the e-mail address of an assigned individual responsible for adjusting the claim at issue; and
  • the total limits available under any policy, contract or agreement, meaning the actual funds, after taking into account erosion and any other offsets, that can be used to satisfy a judgment or to reimburse for payments made to satisfy a judgment;
  • Both the defendant and the defense attorney must certify in an affidavit or affirmation that this information is accurate and will remain accurate and complete for the duration of the case and for sixty days after its conclusion.

While Federal Rules have long required automatic disclosure of specific insurance information, the reach of this law takes things a step further which raises issues of confidentiality (i.e., in cases where confidential settlements with other parties must be followed-up by re-calculations of eroding limits).  Even the built-in limitations – such as the ability of parties to agree to provision of declarations pages in lieu of full written policies – offer little comfort because a plaintiff is expressly permitted to revoke his consent and require production of the complete policy at any time with no expressed restriction on its disclosure elsewhere.

The extent that these disclosures could be subject to protective orders is yet to be seen. Counsel in New York should consider availing themselves of motion practice aimed at limiting the disclosure of the foregoing information as permitted. Specific code sections that may play a significant role in this regard include section 3103(a) “to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts;” 3101(a)(3) providing for protection for “special circumstances,” and section 3101(a)(4) for a statement of circumstances or reasons for disclosure.  But, at this point, only trial and error will determine what situations and cases will have access to these remedial measures.

For now, these requirements are limited to New York State.  However, it is all but certain that, in due time, lawyers for plaintiffs elsewhere will push for similar disclosure requirements in their jurisdictions – perhaps with more expansive language similar to the original provisions of C.P.L.R. 3101 (which would have required disclosure of the details of other lawsuits, the names of attorneys and the amounts paid to them if it reduced or might reduce applicable coverage; and applications for all policies produced). Accordingly, carriers and defense counsel may want to consider identifying specific documents that are ripe for disclosure early on and insist upon protective orders limiting disclosure of coverage information to the parties in the case. Implementing these strategies early on may mitigate what information ultimately finds its way into the public domain.

Meanwhile, defendants in New York will have to strategically balance client interests while complying with these broad new disclosure requirements.

The post New York State Legislature Moves the Goal Post in Favor of Plaintiffs first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/new-york-state-legislature-moves-the-goal-post-in-favor-of-plaintiffs/feed/ 0
Sutter O’Connell Celebrates 20 Years https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-celebrates-20-years/ https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-celebrates-20-years/#respond Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:03:13 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4086 The Firm will Commemorate the Milestone with a Series of Donations Sutter O’Connell is celebrating its twentieth anniversary as a prominent provider of litigation defense services to corporate, governmental, and insurance clients across the country. Founded by a group of trial attorneys in 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio, the firm remains focused on providing business litigation...

The post Sutter O’Connell Celebrates 20 Years first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
The Firm will Commemorate the Milestone with a Series of Donations

Sutter O’Connell is celebrating its twentieth anniversary as a prominent provider of litigation defense services to corporate, governmental, and insurance clients across the country. Founded by a group of trial attorneys in 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio, the firm remains focused on providing business litigation services to its clients in a variety of areas including product liability, transportation, premises liability, governmental liability, commercial liability, environmental liability, toxic torts, and class actions. Services include regional and national management of volume litigation, litigation and trial practice, and appeals. “It is an honor to celebrate this milestone. We are extremely proud to have assembled a firm that combines a diverse and multi-dimensional level of litigation experience. Our people deliver the bold and resourceful representation our clients have come to rely on for the past twenty years. We look forward to continuing to serve our clients as we blaze a path into the future,” stated Jonathan M. Menuez, Managing Partner.

The firm will commemorate its 20th anniversary by making donations to several non-profit organizations. The organizations include a blend of local and national organizations. At the local level, the firm has chosen to donate to The Greater Cleveland Food Bank and Second Harvest Food Bank of Middle Tennessee. Both organizations have a significant impact on the communities in which the firm’s attorneys and employees live and work. The firm also donated to the American Cancer Society’s Hope Lodge program in honor of Larry Sutter, one of the founding partners of the firm which bears his name. Larry passed away in 2017 after a 22-month battle with cancer. Lastly, the firm has chosen to support the Women in Manufacturing’s Education Foundation. Manufacturing clients continue to be one of the pillars of the firm’s success and WiM’s Education Foundation mission of “developing and supporting powerful programs and resources which further the advancement of women in the manufacturing workforce” aligns with the firm and many of its client’s commitment to growing the manufacturing industry while simultaneously promoting diversity. “Supporting causes at both the local and national level has been a keystone of Sutter O’Connell’s internal culture. We are extremely grateful for the opportunity to support these organizations as part of our 20th year celebration,” said Denise A. Dickerson, Shareholder.

The post Sutter O’Connell Celebrates 20 Years first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-celebrates-20-years/feed/ 0
It’s Not Auto Theft, Just Poor Decisions https://www.sutter-law.com/its-not-auto-theft-just-poor-decisions/ https://www.sutter-law.com/its-not-auto-theft-just-poor-decisions/#respond Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:42:15 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4073 Sutter O’Connell attorney Kevin Kita recently obtained summary judgment in Franklin County on behalf of an insurance company accused of breaching its contract and acting in bad faith.  The case arose from exceptional circumstances wherein the plaintiff was attempting to get out of his vehicle lease.  The plaintiff was contacted by a third party who...

The post It’s Not Auto Theft, Just Poor Decisions first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell attorney Kevin Kita recently obtained summary judgment in Franklin County on behalf of an insurance company accused of breaching its contract and acting in bad faith.  The case arose from exceptional circumstances wherein the plaintiff was attempting to get out of his vehicle lease.  The plaintiff was contacted by a third party who claimed to specialize in high-end lease transfers and promised that, in exchange for possession and essentially all rights of use to the vehicle, he would reimburse the plaintiff for all lease payments made while he was locating a new qualified lessee to assume the lease.  After executing a “lease consignment agreement” and sending the vehicle to California, communication with the third-party became difficult.  The lease reimbursements were frequently delayed – though they did arrive with compensation for all late fees.  Within two months, the vehicle was totaled in an accident while being driven by the friend of an individual who was purportedly renting the vehicle from the third-party. It was later revealed that the third-party is under indictment for running a long-con theft scheme, using his lease transfer business as a means of obtaining possession of high-end vehicles.  The plaintiff claimed he was owed coverage under the policy for the “theft” of his vehicle, while the insurer denied coverage because his arrangement with the third-party fell within the rent/lease exemption of his coverage.

Kevin was able to show that the vehicle was not subject to a “theft” under the policy because the plaintiff voluntarily entered into an agreement knowing that the third-party would take possession of the car, transport it out of state, permit test drives for strangers, and then rent or market it to others. Kevin also proved the plaintiff continued to accept reimbursement and did not revoke his permission from the third-party until months after the accident. Further, the plaintiff never provided the insurance carrier with notice of a change in location for the vehicle as required under the policy.

Kevin regularly represents insurance companies regarding issues of breach of contract and bad faith.

The post It’s Not Auto Theft, Just Poor Decisions first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/its-not-auto-theft-just-poor-decisions/feed/ 0
How Tennessee Courts Have Curtailed the Ability to Recover Tort Damages Between Contracting Parties https://www.sutter-law.com/how-tennessee-courts-have-curtailed-the-ability-to-recover-tort-damages-between-contracting-parties/ https://www.sutter-law.com/how-tennessee-courts-have-curtailed-the-ability-to-recover-tort-damages-between-contracting-parties/#respond Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:29:49 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4068 In Milan Supply Chain Sols., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc., the Tennessee Supreme Court recently addressed uncharted waters in Tennessee’s application of the economic loss doctrine (“ELD”). The ELD attempts to keep parties from getting more than they bargain for in their original agreements. States take various stances; some applying a stricter interpretation barring all tort...

The post How Tennessee Courts Have Curtailed the Ability to Recover Tort Damages Between Contracting Parties first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
In Milan Supply Chain Sols., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc., the Tennessee Supreme Court recently addressed uncharted waters in Tennessee’s application of the economic loss doctrine (“ELD”). The ELD attempts to keep parties from getting more than they bargain for in their original agreements. States take various stances; some applying a stricter interpretation barring all tort claims that appear alongside claims for breach of contract, and others allowing tort recovery where there is evidence of fraudulent inducement into a contract. Tennessee courts have previously held that Tennessee does not recognize an exception to the ELD under which recovery in tort is possible for damage to the defective product itself when the defect renders the product unreasonably dangerous and causes the damage by means of a sudden calamitous event, but, before Milan, there has not been any guidance whether the ELD bars claims for fraud.

Milan Supply Chain Sols., Inc. is a motor carrier that contracted with manufacturer Navistar for the purchase of over two hundred trucks. Milan alleged that Navistar made several misrepresentations concerning the trucks and brought numerous claims including a claim for breach of contract and fraud. After trial and making its way up to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court, in surveying the law of other jurisdictions, attempted to strike a balance between the various interpretations of the ELD; not entirely barring claims of fraud but limiting them where the misrepresentations by the dishonest party go beyond statements about the quality or the character of the goods sold. In such a case, the Milan Court emphasized the importance of considering the sophistication of parties engaging in contract negotiations, and accentuated the freedom that parties have to negotiate warranties to account for possible defects prior to entering into a contract. The ruling attempted to strike a balance between important tenants of Tennessee law, “freedom of contract and abhorrence of fraud.”

While this was applied in the context of a products liability case, there is no reason that this interpretation could not be applied into other types of transactions. Where there is an absence of personal injury, and the sole injury is economic loss, contract law provides parties with ample avenues to pursue remedies. Even if a dangerous product has a high likelihood of causing harm, without a showing of personal injury, buyers are still able to pursue remedies in contract, as underscored by Milan. Conversely, this reasoning could limit buyers and deter future litigants from seeking non-contractual damages for truly fraudulent situations that occur alongside a breach of contract. Even so, the decision in Milan has set the tone, and Tennessee litigants may press for further application of the ELD outside the realm of products and goods to preventing parties from maneuvering around contractual language in search of tort remedies. While Milan may be Tennessee’s first instance interpreting fraud claims and the ELD, it will certainly not be the last.

The post How Tennessee Courts Have Curtailed the Ability to Recover Tort Damages Between Contracting Parties first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/how-tennessee-courts-have-curtailed-the-ability-to-recover-tort-damages-between-contracting-parties/feed/ 0
Sutter O’Connell Attorneys Named to 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-attorneys-named-to-2022-ohio-super-lawyers/ https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-attorneys-named-to-2022-ohio-super-lawyers/#respond Tue, 04 Jan 2022 20:02:57 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4050 Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that five of our attorneys have been named to the 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers: James L. McCrystal, Jr., Products Liability, Business Litigation, Professional Liability Matthew C. O’Connell,  Products Liability, Environmental Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, Business Litigation James M. Popson, General Litigation,...

The post Sutter O’Connell Attorneys Named to 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that five of our attorneys have been named to the 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.

2022 Ohio Super Lawyers:

James L. McCrystal, Jr., Products Liability, Business Litigation, Professional Liability

Matthew C. O’Connell,  Products Liability, Environmental Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, Business Litigation

James M. Popson, General Litigation, Products Liability, State, Local & Municipal

Nathan F. Studeny, General Litigation, Products Liability

2022 Ohio Rising Star:

Kevin W. Kita, Products Liability, Civil Litigation, Insurance Coverage

Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service that recognizes lawyers in more than 70 practice areas who attained peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

The post Sutter O’Connell Attorneys Named to 2022 Ohio Super Lawyers first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-attorneys-named-to-2022-ohio-super-lawyers/feed/ 0
Isabella M. Simon Has Joined the Firm https://www.sutter-law.com/isabella-m-simon-has-joined-the-firm/ https://www.sutter-law.com/isabella-m-simon-has-joined-the-firm/#respond Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:54:30 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4047 Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Isabella M. Simon has recently joined the Firm as an Associate. Ms. Simon will concentrate her practice in the areas of premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located in the Firm’s Nashville location. Ms. Simon received her Juris Doctor from Duquesne University School...

The post Isabella M. Simon Has Joined the Firm first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Isabella M. Simon has recently joined the Firm as an Associate.

Ms. Simon will concentrate her practice in the areas of premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located in the Firm’s Nashville location.

Ms. Simon received her Juris Doctor from Duquesne University School of Law where she served as the President of the Public Interest Law Association, competed on the Trial Advocacy Team, and wrote for the Juris Magazine. During law school, she was a Student Attorney for the Urban Development Practicum. She received her Bachelor of Arts from The Ohio State University in 2014.

Prior to joining Sutter O’Connell, Ms. Simon practiced as a solo practitioner in her hometown of Youngstown, Ohio, covering a wide variety of civil and criminal matters.

Ms. Simon is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association, the Tennessee State Bar Association, the Nashville Bar Association, and the Tennessee Defense Lawyers Association.

The post Isabella M. Simon Has Joined the Firm first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/isabella-m-simon-has-joined-the-firm/feed/ 0
Defending Toxic Tort Claims in the Age of COVID: Takeaways from the 2021 DRI Asbestos Seminar https://www.sutter-law.com/defending-toxic-tort-claims-in-the-age-of-covid-takeaways-from-the-2021-dri-asbestos-seminar/ https://www.sutter-law.com/defending-toxic-tort-claims-in-the-age-of-covid-takeaways-from-the-2021-dri-asbestos-seminar/#respond Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:35:01 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4018 I recently attended the DRI’s Asbestos Medicine Seminar in New Orleans and found one predominant theme: not even a worldwide pandemic can slow down the runaway train that is asbestos litigation. From continuous advertisement on television and social media to exorbitant verdicts involving low-dose consumer products such as baby powder, there appears to be no...

The post Defending Toxic Tort Claims in the Age of COVID: Takeaways from the 2021 DRI Asbestos Seminar first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
I recently attended the DRI’s Asbestos Medicine Seminar in New Orleans and found one predominant theme: not even a worldwide pandemic can slow down the runaway train that is asbestos litigation. From continuous advertisement on television and social media to exorbitant verdicts involving low-dose consumer products such as baby powder, there appears to be no end in sight to litigation that has now spanned over 40-years.

Here is what I took away from the conference:

  1. They blinded me with science.

For almost two years now, prospective asbestos case jurors have been inundated with scientific information and opinions from many sources, informed or not, surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic concerning its cause, symptoms, and prevention (masks, social distancing, vaccines, etc.). Companies defending asbestos claims often point to the science to establish that their low-dose or chrysotile-containing product does not cause disease. Since juror perceptions on science and fears of respiratory conditions are likely not the same as the were before the pandemic, companies defending asbestos cases must recognize these changes in juror perception and not simply rely on historical strategies to defend their product. For instance, many lawyers are predisposed to seating educated jurors, believing an educated juror would be able to better understand the complexities involved with the science and epidemiology of asbestos exposure and causation. Surprisingly, however, a recent survey of respondents with no high school diploma or equivalent were three-times more likely to report that they were not more concerned with breathing or respiratory issues because of the pandemic as those who had a degree. Now more than ever, each potential jurors’ views of and interest in science and thoughts on COVID-19 may be more predictive than using demographics and education and crucial to the defense of cases that rely heavily on scientific studies and opinions.

  1. If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.

Television commercials and “infomercials” advertising legal services for those allegedly injured by products, medical devices, and/or pharmaceuticals are not new. Asbestos lawyers devote substantial money to solicit clients through television advertisements. With the advent of social media and its younger audience, these firms have a dual focus – to solicit clients, a generally mature audience, and to influence the typical jurors, who are younger and uninformed about asbestos, by flooding the airwaves and Internet with information and themes helpful to their cause. The companies affected by these cases and the defense bar have largely ignored these efforts to influence jurors, and asbestos verdicts continue to grow. A campaign to counter misinformation with facts is a potential solution to the efforts by plaintiff’s firms to anchor jurors to their themes. In the short term, however, asbestos defendants must develop a strategy to offset this anchoring of jurors through pretrial motions and effective voir dire to level the scales of justice at the start of trial. This might include the development of an expert witness to explain the effects of these advertisements to the Court, pretrial motions requesting extended voir dire on the subject of advertising, and a request that any such questioning be conducted individually in camera and outside the presence of other potential jurors to prevent the repeating and re-entrenchment of this anchored information within the jury pool.

  1. How do my genes fit?

One of the many misconceptions advertised by the plaintiffs’ bar is the notion that asbestos exposure, at any level or dose, is the only cause of mesothelioma. However, it is well-established that mesotheliomas can occur from other causes, including those with no documented history of asbestos exposure. For instance, scientific studies have established that therapeutic radiation at certain levels can cause the development of mesothelioma in the area where the treatment was targeted. Today, science is taking a more detailed look at the role of one’s genetic makeup in identifying the source or cause of human cancers, including mesotheliomas. The focus of many asbestos cases today involves claims by younger mesothelioma plaintiffs with very little direct or secondary exposure to chrysotile asbestos. The role of genetics (errors in the body’s own natural process of gene replication and mutation) may be the key to defending your case and countering the potential misconception of a juror that mesothelioma can only be caused by exposure to asbestos. Don’t ignore the importance of (1) conducting a thorough review of a plaintiff’s medical history and that of his or her immediate family for references to other malignancies or conditions that could be caused by genetic mutations, or treatments for such conditions, and (2) retaining a medical expert well-versed in the developing medical literature on the role of genetics in the development of malignancies to dispel this common misconception that might be held by your jurors at trial.

  1. Deep in the heart of [the] Texas [two-step].

Starting with Johns-Manville in 1982 – one of the largest producers of asbestos products and raw asbestos in the United States – hundreds of companies have filed for bankruptcy protection as the result of being dragged into asbestos litigation. Without the ability to recover large verdicts against the companies responsible for manufacturing traditional “asbestos products” such as pipe covering and insulation, the litigation shifted its focus to viable companies with continuing manufacturing interests that supplied “low dose” industrial and consumer products containing encapsulated or trace amounts of asbestos or other asbestiform minerals. Some of those companies with continuing manufacturing interests are now looking for a quick exit from the tort system by way of the Texas two-step – a reverse merger maneuver whereby one of the successors of the reversed merged company is given certain assets and the predecessor’s asbestos liabilities and files for bankruptcy protection, while the other successor continues the business outside of bankruptcy and generally guarantees money placed in a trust for current and further asbestos claimants. For instance, Johnson & Johnson – embroiled in litigation involving claims that its talcum powder was contaminated with asbestos and recently the victim of multi-million-dollar verdicts – recently restructured its business, whereby one of the resulting newly-formed businesses – LTL Management LLC –  filed for bankruptcy in  North Carolina in an effort ”to fully resolve talc-related claims through a Chapter 11 reorganization without subjecting the entire J&J enterprise to a bankruptcy proceeding.” Plaintiffs have vehemently objected to this maneuver, claiming that J&J is improperly attempting to escape its asbestos liabilities. The case has just recently been transferred to New Jersey, and it will likely take years to sort out whether the restructuring was proper, and if so, the amount of assets that will be set aside for talc claimants. At the same time, those defendants remaining in the litigation will need to press forward with an empty chair and continue their efforts to persuade courts and jurors that their individual products were not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s disease. A greater focus on this defense, with experts, may prove to be an effective strategy, especially with jurors in the COVID-19 era.

If you were at the conference, I would be interested to hear your takeaways.

The post Defending Toxic Tort Claims in the Age of COVID: Takeaways from the 2021 DRI Asbestos Seminar first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/defending-toxic-tort-claims-in-the-age-of-covid-takeaways-from-the-2021-dri-asbestos-seminar/feed/ 0
Sutter O’Connell Announces Continued Expansion with the Addition of Two New Associates https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-announces-continued-expansion-with-the-addition-of-two-new-associates/ https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-announces-continued-expansion-with-the-addition-of-two-new-associates/#respond Tue, 09 Nov 2021 19:49:04 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=4007 Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Tanjeet Dhillon and Austin M. Richards have recently joined the Firm as Associates. Tanjeet will concentrate her practice in the areas of commercial litigation, premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located in our Cleveland location. Tanjeet received her Juris Doctor from the University...

The post Sutter O’Connell Announces Continued Expansion with the Addition of Two New Associates first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Tanjeet Dhillon and Austin M. Richards have recently joined the Firm as Associates.

Tanjeet will concentrate her practice in the areas of commercial litigation, premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located in our Cleveland location.

Tanjeet received her Juris Doctor from the University of Akron School of Law where she graduated with cum laude honors and served as the program coordinator for the Miller Becker Center for Professional Responsibility. During law school, she clerked at a business and litigation firm in Akron and civil and family litigation firm in Toronto. Tanjeet received her Bachelor of Arts from Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario in 2018.

Austin will concentrate his practice in the areas of commercial litigation, premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. His office is located in our Cleveland location.

Austin received his Juris Doctor from the University of Akron School of Law where he was named the 2020 Best Advocate for the National Board of Trial Advocacy – Tournament of Champions. He also received the CALI Excellence for the Future Award for Trial Advocacy II. While attending law school, Austin worked as a law clerk at The Cincinnati Insurance Company and as a legal contractor for MRI Software.  He received his Bachelor of Arts from The Ohio State University in 2018.

The post Sutter O’Connell Announces Continued Expansion with the Addition of Two New Associates first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/sutter-oconnell-announces-continued-expansion-with-the-addition-of-two-new-associates/feed/ 0
Mary E. Dennison Joins Sutter O’Connell https://www.sutter-law.com/mary-e-dennison-joins-sutter-oconnell/ https://www.sutter-law.com/mary-e-dennison-joins-sutter-oconnell/#respond Tue, 05 Oct 2021 18:24:58 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=3957 Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Mary E. Dennison (Burns) has recently joined the Firm as an Associate. She will concentrate her practice in the areas of commercial litigation, construction law, premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located the Firm’s Cleveland location. Mary received her Juris Doctor from Capital...

The post Mary E. Dennison Joins Sutter O’Connell first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Mary E. Dennison (Burns) has recently joined the Firm as an Associate. She will concentrate her practice in the areas of commercial litigation, construction law, premises liability defense, products liability, and warranty defense. Her office is located the Firm’s Cleveland location.

Mary received her Juris Doctor from Capital University Law School where she graduated with cum laude honors and was inducted into the Order of the Barristers. During law school, she was a member of the ABA National Appellate Advocacy Moot Court Team and served as a Judicial Extern for Justice Pat DeWine at the Supreme Court of Ohio. Prior to joining Sutter O’Connell, Mary was as an associate attorney for a medical malpractice and personal injury firm in Cleveland, Ohio. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in English Language and Literature from Wheeling Jesuit University in 2017.

Mary is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association and the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Mary can be reached at mdennison@sutter-law.com.

The post Mary E. Dennison Joins Sutter O’Connell first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/mary-e-dennison-joins-sutter-oconnell/feed/ 0
Jonathan M. Menuez Named Managing Shareholder https://www.sutter-law.com/menuez-named-managing-shareholder/ https://www.sutter-law.com/menuez-named-managing-shareholder/#respond Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:23:13 +0000 https://www.sutter-law.com/?p=3928 Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Jonathan M. Menuez has been elected Managing Shareholder of the Firm. A graduate of The Ohio State University and the University of Akron School of Law, Menuez joined Sutter O’Connell in 2002 as a Shareholder. He has served as an Officer, member of the Firm’s Board of Directors...

The post Jonathan M. Menuez Named Managing Shareholder first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
Sutter O’Connell is pleased to announce that Jonathan M. Menuez has been elected Managing Shareholder of the Firm. A graduate of The Ohio State University and the University of Akron School of Law, Menuez joined Sutter O’Connell in 2002 as a Shareholder. He has served as an Officer, member of the Firm’s Board of Directors and a member of the Executive Committee before being elected to the role of Managing Shareholder. “Sutter O’Connell has always been a source of proven trial lawyers. As we prepare to celebrate the Firm’s 20th Anniversary, we continue to expand our firm with a diverse group of the best and brightest new talent to advance our national growth strategy and continue to support our clients,” stated Menuez.

With twenty-six years of experience, Menuez has built a well-known national reputation as a pathfinder for the effective defense of catastrophic injury and damages claims. He focuses his practice in the areas of products liability, trucking and transportation, and archery and sporting goods liability. Menuez has successfully defended jury trials on a national basis resulting in retention by some of the world’s most noted corporations to defend their most serious cases, often involving claims of spoliation and punitive damages. He has effectively tried cases in Ohio, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Dakota, and Arkansas.

Jonathan can be reached at jmenuez@sutter-law.com.

The post Jonathan M. Menuez Named Managing Shareholder first appeared on Sutter O'Connell Attorneys.]]>
https://www.sutter-law.com/menuez-named-managing-shareholder/feed/ 0