Representative Decisions

Over the years, the attorneys at Cornell & Gollub have briefed and argued many significant cases concerning tort law and trial practice in the state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout New England. A representative list of decisions includes:

  • Gillis v. C&L Service, Inc.
    , (Mass. Super. Feb. 12, 2018)
    (Summary judgment entered in favor of retail hardware store defendant on negligence claim in premises liability action).
  • Fiano v. Remington Arms Company, LLC et al.
    , (Mass. Super. Jan. 16, 2018)
    (Summary judgment entered in favor of defendant upon design defect claim after defendant successfully precluded testimony by plaintiff’s design expert).
  • Peerless Insurance Company v. BMW of North America, LLC
    , (N.H. Super. March 14, 2016)
    (Awarding partial summary judgment where insured’s release extinguished subrogation rights of insurer).
  • Sensabaugh v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
    , (D. Mass. 2016)
    (Dismissal of product liability claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
  • Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Saint Paul Arms Condominium Association v. Toto U.S.A., Inc., et al.
    , 2016 WL 4722774 (D. Mass 2016)
    (Jury verdict for defendant/manufacturer on negligent manufacturing claim).
  • Anderson et al. v. FCA US LLC, et al.
    , No. UWYCV156026831S, Order 423183 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 11, 2015)
    (Motion to Strike allowed as to plaintiff’s claims for loss of filial consortium on grounds that such claims are not recognized under Connecticut law).
  • White v. Elsevier Inc., and related cases
    , (Mass. Super. 2015)
    (Summary judgment for manufacturers of Reglan/MCP in nine companion cases applying product liability laws of Tennessee, Mississippi, Indiana, and Oklahoma).
  • Utica National Ins. Group v. BMW of North America, LLC
    , 45 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Mass. 2014)
    (Dismissing G. L. c. 93A, § 11 claim because a mere allegation of breach of warranty alone is insufficient to establish a plausible claim in the commercial context).
  • Sauvageau v. Detroit Diesel Corporation
    , 82 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2012)
    (Affirming summary judgment on breach of express warranty claim, jury verdict for defendant on breach of contract claim, and bench trial ruling for defendant on G. L. c. 93A claim).
  • Ryan v. Hughes-Ortiz
    , 81 Mass. App. Ct. 90 (2012)
    (In matter of first impression in Massachusetts, affirming summary judgment on behalf of gun manufacturer in product liability action based on federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act).
  • Rymer Adams v. Roadmax USA, et al.
    , (Mass. Super. Dec. 20, 2010)
    (Summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant upon claims of design and manufacturing defects where plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the defendant was a party to any of the transactions at issue).
  • Dowling v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A, LLC, et al.
    , (Mass. Super June 23, 2010)
    (Summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, after defendant successfully moved to preclude testimony of plaintiff's design expert, and in light of absence of causation evidence by plaintiff).
  • Francis Crecco, et al. v. Daewoo Electronics America, Inc., et al.
    , (Mass. Super. Aug. 17, 2009)
    (Granting summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff failed to rebut affirmative evidence put forth by defendant that it did not design, manufacture, sell, distribute, or otherwise have any connection with the product which allegedly harmed plaintiff).
  • Laganelli v. BMW of North America, LLC
    , (Mass. Super., May 20, 2008)
    (Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's state and federal breach of warranty claims arising out of issues which did not render vehicle unsafe or unreliable and which were ultimately resolved in accordance with express warranty).
  • Public Service Mut. Ins. v. Empire Comfort Systems, Inc.
    , 573 F.Supp.2d 372 (D. Mass. 2008)
    (Granting summary judgment on negligent failure to warn claim where the risk of danger was open and obvious, and on negligent design claim where plaintiff proffered no expert testimony).
  • Rozenvayn v. BMW of North America, LLC
    , 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2007)
    (summary judgment upheld where plaintiff cannot demonstrate that inadequacy of warning was the proximate cause of this injuries; specifically, that additional or more specific warnings would have prevented his injuries).
  • Hiller v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation
    , 2007 WL 3260199 (Mass. Super. Sept. 25, 2007)
    (Denying class certification on the ground that common questions do not predominate over issues applicable to individual members of the proposed class).
  • Commonwealth v. Philip Morris Inc. et al.
    , 448 Mass. 836, 864 N.E.2d 505 (2007)
    (Dismissing claims against tobacco companies for state's failure to arbitrate dispute arising from master settlement agreement).
  • Alves v. Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. Maria Depina and Vieira Dikson Lopes
    , 448 F. Supp. 2d 285 (D. Mass. 2006)
    (Summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s claims of a defect in her vehicle’s air bag system).
  • United Seniors v. Philip Morris, et al.
    , 2006 WL 2471977 (D. Mass. 2006)
    (Dismissing claims against tobacco companies alleging responsibility under Medicare as Secondary Payer Act for bills paid by Medicare).
  • Killion v. Commonwealth Yachts
    , 421 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Mass. 2006)
    (Dismissing claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over yacht manufacturer).
  • Litchfield Financial Corporation v. Buyers Source Real Estate Group
    , 389 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 2005)
    (Dismissing claims for lack of personal jurisdiction over out-of-state attorney in malpractice action).
  • Wilson v. The City of Lawrence and DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 2004 WL 3331844 (Mass. Super. Dec. 16, 2004)
    (Summary judgment granted where conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s claims of negligence and breach of warranty was not reasonably foreseeable).
  • Murphy v. Aero-Med, Ltd.
    , 345 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2004)
    (Summary judgment granted based upon statute of limitations and discovery rule).
  • Phelan ex rel. Estate of Phelan v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
    , 323 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Conn. 2004)
    (Summary judgment granted on Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act claims on statute of limitations grounds).
  • Smith v. Robertshaw Controls Company
    , 2003 WL 23142189 (D. Mass. Dec. 2003)
    (Summary judgment entered in favor of water heater manufacturer).
  • Bruneault v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
    , 2002 WL 32538419 (D. Mass. Sept. 2002)
    (Express FIFRA preemption of plaintiff’s state law damages claim).
  • Wajda v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al.
    , 103 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D. Mass. 2000)
    (Dismissal for failure to state a claim against tobacco company defendants).
  • Stanton v. AM General Corporation
    , 50 Mass. App. Ct. 116 (2000)
    (Affirming dismissal of claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction).
  • Santos v. Chrysler Corporation
    , 430 Mass. 198 (1999)
    (Affirming plaintiff’s verdict).
  • Massachusetts Laborers’ Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al.
    , 62 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D. Mass. 1999)
    (Dismissing plaintiffs’ claims to recover funds expended by Health & Welfare Fund allegedly related to cigarette smoking).
  • Strom v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    , 423 Mass. 330, 667 N.E.2d 1137 (1996)
    (Establishing broad Rule 34 rule).
  • Puopolo v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., et al.
    , 41 Mass. App. Ct. 96, 668 N.E.2d 855 (1996)
    (Affirming defense verdict).
  • Courtney v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
    , 926 F. Supp. 223 (D. Mass. 1996)
    (Dismissing airbag claims based upon federal pre-emption).
  • Goulet v. Carpenters Dist. Council of Boston and Vicinity
    , 884 F. Supp. 17 (D. Mass. 1994)
    (Summary judgment in favor of carpenters union).
  • Waldman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    , 413 Mass. 320, 597 N.E.2d 404 (1992)
    (Setting limits on recoverable costs after defense verdict).
  • Headley v. Chrysler Motor Corporation
    , 141 F.R.D. 362 (D. Mass. 1991)
    (Exclusion of plaintiff’s expert for spoliation of evidence).
  • Siegal v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    , 921 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1990)
    (Affirming preclusion of expert for spoliation of evidence).
  • Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    , 835 F.2d 389 (1st Cir. 1987)
    (Affirming defense verdict).
  • Shea v. Keuffel & Esser of New Jersey, Inc.
    , 668 F. Supp. 41 (D. Mass. 1986)
    (Dismissing claims against blueprint paper manufacturer based upon statute of limitations).
  • Miller v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
    , 779 F.2d 769 (1st Cir. 1985)
    (Affirming dismissal of claims based on corporate separateness).
  • Buckley v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    , 780 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985)
    (Affirming dismissal of claims based on statute of limitations and discovery rule).