|
Attorneys page 
Firm Overview page 
Environment & Land Use Trial & Litigation Real Estate & Business 
News & Updates page Trade Secrets FAQ IP Insurance CID FAQ Non-Compete FAQ  |
|
PRACTICE AREA : Trial & Litigation Class Action Litigation : Representative Cases and Reported Opinions Individuals vs. Retail CompanyThis case arose out of allegations that certain of defendant’s employees in the photo processing department would make extra, unauthorized copies photographs of customer photographs for personal enjoyment. The case was settled on confidential terms.Michael Klein and Lisa Magids represented one of the defendants. Individual vs. Insurance Company The case was filed as a nation-wide class action. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misled their insureds into believing certain insurance coverage was included for free, when in fact it was not. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants' renewal practices were improper because they did not account for the depreciated value of the insured property. The plaintiffs alleged that these acts constituted fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of the insurance codes of all 50 states. The plaintiffs sought punitive damages in an unspecified amount. In the civil cover sheet, the plaintiffs listed their damages demand as $100,000,000. No class was ever certified, and the claims of the individual class representatives were settled. Michael Klein was one of the two lead attorneys for the defendants. Individual vs. Insurance CompanyThis was a private class action arising out of the same factual allegations as the insurance regulatory lawsuit involving a self-move company and its insurance carrier. In this case, three individuals filed suit on behalf of themselves and all Texas residents who purchased certain products in the previous four years, excluding those who filed a claim under any of the purchased products. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Article 1.14-1 and Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, as well as Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The suit also sought a refund of all insurance premiums paid by the class members, as well as exemplary damages and attorneys' fees. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of restitution, ruling that the class members were not entitled to a return of any amounts paid to defendant. As a result, no class was ever certified, and the case was settled for a nominal amount. Michael Klein was the lead attorney for the defendants. Individuals vs. Self-Move CompanyThis was a private class action arising out of the same factual allegations as the insurance regulatory lawsuit directly above. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of herself and all Texas residents who purchased certain products in the last four years, excluding those who filed a claim under any of the purchased products. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Article 1.14-1 and Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, as well as Section 17.46(b) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The suit sought a refund of all insurance premiums paid by the class members, as well as exemplary damages and attorneys' fees. No class was ever certified, and the case was eventually non-suited. Michael Klein was the lead attorney for the defendants. Individual vs. Insurance CompanyThis case was filed as a state-wide class action. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants allowed insureds to be overinsured for property damage coverage on policies covering travel trailers, mobile home, motor homes and manufactured homes. The plaintiff also requested injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. No class was ever certified, and the claim of the individual class representative was settled. Michael Klein was one of the two lead attorneys for the defendants. Ted Grant vs. Austin Bridge Construction Company, 725 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. App. Houston [14 th Dist.] 1987), no writ. This case was filed as a class action comprised of property owners in Elkins Lake subdivision. The property owners claimed that Austin Bridge Construction Company allowed dirt, sand, clay and silt from its construction site to wash into Elkins Lake and onto subdivision streets, driveways and other areas. Although the trial court initially certified the matter as a class action, the court later withdrew certification and struck the pleadings of 120 of the 128 plaintiffs.
|
512.225.5800 | info@smith-robertson.com | © 2004 Smith|Robertson |