Home About
Us Practice Areas
Within recent months Mr. Peck has successfully facilitated the settlement of a number of significant or unusual matters, including the following cases. Total settlements in the civil cases exceeded $8,500,000.
CIVIL MATTERS
Set for trial in Federal Court, this case involved a declaratory judgment action filed by Safeco in an effort to avoid coverage on a “force-placed” fire policy.
The hotel property had gone to foreclosure and the Bank, now the titled owner, counterclaimed for the fire damages.
Unusual issues: Safeco alleged that the fire loss resulted in no economic damages because the hotel property had been effectively “condemned” by court order prior to the fire, thus it owed nothing. Also, the insured had neglected to secure the condemned property and vandals committed arson. The Bank alleged that Safeco had issued a sham policy because it accepted a premium and issued a policy on what it should have known was condemned property. OCPA claims included.
Set for trial in Dayton, a homeowner sought damages against the general contractor for defective construction. The GC filed 3rd party claims against 5 subcontractors that, along with the GC, were out of business. A declaratory judgment action on behalf of the insurance carrier.
Unusual issues: A similar case against the same GC, involving a home in the same subdivision, had recently settled. The mediation participants were locked in on the settlement paid in that case as being a fair settlement in this one. Further, the carriers were emboldened by a recent Montgomery County decision, on essentially the same facts, that denied coverage to the homeowner. The mediated case was being handled by the same lower court judge.
In Louisville, 45 individuals filed separate suits against a religious Society that operated, managed, and staffed a local orphanage. The complaints all alleged physical and/or emotional abuse at the hands of a priest and several nuns, with claims dating back, in some cases, over 40 years.
Unusual issues: Self insured charity. Alleged perpetrators deceased.
Employee of business embezzled $543,744. With ostensible authority, employee opened up bank accounts in name of business and used $$ personally. No legal authorization from employer. Business sought recovery from Bank for improperly opening accounts and not recognizing illegal deposits.
Unusual issues: Banking regs. vs. Ohio statute making employer responsible for conduct of its own employee. Negligence of employer in not recognizing loss that occurred over 3½ year period.
Suit to dissolve business relationships between two principals, five outside investors, 5 LLC’s, 3 partnerships, one ltd. partnership, and 2 lenders.
Unusual issues: Cross-collateralized loans, intra and inter family ownerships, debt to equity covenants with lenders, value of work in progress.
Personal injury suit for damages due to inhalation of allegedly toxic fumes from neighboring business. Permanent and total disability. Post traumatic stress syndrome. Blackboard specials $1mm.
Unusual issues: Plaintiff in tragic state, tearful, addled, severe stutter. Wk. Comp. paid $400K to date (KY claim). Tortfeasor company self insured. Fumes inhaled not neurotoxic; alleged malingering.
19 yr. old passenger of drunk driver killed. Coma 4 days. Driver convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide…3 yrs.prison. $107k medicals; $100k BI limits paid by tortfeasor’s carrier. Deceased was excellent and well liked young man.
Unusual issues: Deceased’s mom and dad divorced and hated each other. Both present at mediation (dad with new wife) with opposing views on settlement. Pl’s counsel stuck in middle and had oversold case to mother.
KY condo owner made claim to property owner’s association’s insurer for construction defect/water intrusion. As an “accommodation”, carrier made repairs. Situation reoccurred. Carrier hired remediation company which did additional work. Situation reoccurred again. Carrier backed away.
Unusual issues: Suit against carrier was estoppel, negligent performance of voluntary act, bad faith; claim by Pltf against remediation contractor subject to indemnification language in contract between contractor and carrier. Contractor had MSJ in its favor re: indemnification and was pursuing indemnity claim for $60k attorneys fees vs. carrier.
Plaintiff wife suffered transaction of the common bile duct during surgery for removal of her gallbladder. Liability contested.
Unusual issue: Plaintiff’s husband was intractably angry and refused all settlement overtures. Turned against his counsel and wanted day in court. Case settled without Pl’s counsel in room.
Plaintiff terminated due to “reduction in force” at local hospital, shortly after she returned from 4 month family leave due to epileptic seizure. Federal FCA, FMLA, and ERISA claims, plus state claims.
Unusual issues: Pl. had been whistleblower before epilepsy discovered. Def. hospital had change of top management during family leave. Decision to terminate made by new CEO without knowledge of whistleblowing and medical condition.
Plaintiff sought damages from non-profit corp. for being terminated as Executive Director and Trustee without proper Board action… corp. was nominal plaintiff for derivative relief. Defs. included trustees, corp., then-corp. counsel, and co-workers.
Unusual Issues: Pl. was the founder of the national non-profit and had employed her son. Both were suspected of collaborating in the misuse of company funds. These allegations caused the Trustees to meet without notice and counsel advised that Pl. be terminated. Upon suspicion of violence, the police “evicted” Pl. Many hard feelings on both sides.
Plaintiff municipality sought damages for negligent design and construction of wastewater treatment holding pond which was classified post-construction as a “dam” per state regs.
Unusual issues: lead Def. was well-known wastewater treatment design engineer and asserted himself vigorously throughout the proceedings, including a demand that he be permitted, before agreeing to any settlement discussions, to personally persuade the Ohio DNR that their classification of the pond as a “dam” was in error. Def. contractor had major coverage problems and contributed actual repairs to perform part of the work necessary to bring the pond into compliance with the DNR’s dam regulations.
FAMILY LAW MATTERS