Bowman and Brooke - Insights RSS

Arizona Capitol Times Showcases Will Auther’s Longtime Leadership on the Commission on Judicial Performance Review

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 -0500

Partner Will Auther is featured in a recent Arizona Capitol Times article highlighting his years of service on the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR). Created in 1992 by an amendment to the state constitution, the commission develops performance standards and conducts reviews of merit-selected justices and judges who are subject to retention elections.

In the Q&A-style piece, Will reflects on his more than 14 years on the commission, including his current leadership position as chair. He underscores the critical role performance evaluations play in maintaining a high-performing, fair, and impartial judiciary, as well as the importance of providing meaningful, nonpartisan information for voters as they consider judicial retention decisions.

Will’s perspective reflects the same principles that guide his practice—advocating in high-stakes litigation where fairness, credibility, and sound judicial decision-making are critical to achieving just outcomes for his clients.

Read the full article.

Angela Angotti Named to Law360's 2026 Product Liability Advisory Board

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 -0500

Leading legal industry news service Law360 has named Partner Angela L. Angotti to its 2026 Product Liability Advisory Board. Nominated and selected by the Law360 editorial staff, advisory board members across multiple jurisdictions and areas of law provide feedback on the publication’s coverage, as well as valuable insight to help shape future reporting and analysis.

This prestigious appointment underscores Angela’s position as a thought leader among her peers and her deep experience defending product liability cases for major auto manufacturers, including dozens of cases tried to verdict in both state and federal courts.

More than 3.1 million readers rely on Law360 to deliver breaking legal news and in-depth analysis across more than 60 practice areas.

View the full list of editorial board members.

Bowman and Brooke Sponsors ABA's 2026 Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation Conference

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke LLP is proud to sponsor the ABA 2026 Motor Vehicle Product Liability Litigation Conference, taking place April 15–17, 2026, in Scottsdale. Hosted by the American Bar Association, this premier program brings together leading practitioners, in-house counsel, and industry professionals to examine the most pressing issues shaping the automotive litigation landscape.

The conference will focus on emerging technical, regulatory, and legal developments affecting motor vehicle product liability, offering timely insights into evolving risks, defense strategies, and industry trends.

Bowman and Brooke attorneys will play an active role in the program. On April 17:

Amanda Heitz and Courtney Shytle will co-present “Defense Wins, Plaintiff Wins! Recent Verdicts & Legal Trends,” a session analyzing notable trial outcomes and the broader implications for product manufacturers and defense counsel.
Bard Borkon will present “Selecting a Jury in the Current Climate,” offering practical strategies for navigating juror attitudes and jury selection dynamics in today’s litigation environment.

Bowman and Brooke’s sponsorship and participation reflect the firm’s longstanding commitment to thought leadership in product liability defense and its deep experience representing automotive and industrial manufacturers in high-stakes litigation across the country.

For additional details about the conference, please visit the official event website.

Marisa Trasatti Co-Authors Amicus Brief Cited by the Maryland Supreme Court

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke Baltimore Partner Marisa Trasatti’s co-authored amicus brief, Brief for Amici Curiae Atlantic Legal Foundation and Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel in Support of Appellees, was published in a recent edition of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel’s “Friday 5 Things to Know” newsletter. Marisa’s brief was subsequently cited by the Maryland Supreme Court in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. B. P. P.L.C. The court’s ruling aligns with the arguments presented within the amicus brief.

Click here to read the amicus brief.

New Ruling Expands Access to Critical Evidence in Injury Cases—Implications Beyond Minnesota

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 -0500

On March 18, 2026, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided State of Minnesota vs. Smeby. The decision is important because it limits the scope of Minnesota’s physician-patient privilege statute (Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd 1(d)) to generally exclude communications between patients and paramedics—paving the way for admissions in medical records that can be used to defend against frivolous claims.

As a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court also held that statements made by a patient to a third party are not automatically protected by the nurse-patient privilege statute (Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g)) when the third party conveys those statements to a nurse.

Physician-patient privilege does not have a basis in common law. It is typically established by state statute. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Smeby may therefore provide a persuasive framework for other courts addressing whether physician-patient communications are privileged under the terms of the legislative enactments in other states. Moreover, if a manufacturer’s product allegedly results in a personal injury and corresponding court proceeding in Minnesota, then application of the Minnesota physician-patient statutory privilege will likely apply—regardless of where the manufacture is located. Accordingly, the interpretation of Minnesota’s physician-patient statutory privilege may be of broad interest to manufacturers who could find themselves subject to personal injury claims in Minnesota.

Although the Smeby case arises in the context of a criminal proceeding, it impacts civil proceedings and may provide significant assistance in defending cases involving personal injuries—unless the Minnesota Legislature expands the scope of the physician-patient privilege by expressly extending it to include communications with paramedics.

Background Facts

In 2021, Richard Smeby was involved in a three-car accident. A police officer arriving on the scene found Smeby unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle and administered two doses of Narcan. Smeby regained consciousness.

As he was transported to the hospital for treatment, Smeby told a paramedic he had been using “too much” heroin. At the hospital, Smeby told his girlfriend he had taken heroin, and the girlfriend shared Smeby’s statement with a nurse.

The hospital released Smeby’s medical records, including the “ambulance run sheet,” pursuant to a warrant. Those medical records included notes about Smeby’s statement to the paramedic, as well as the statement Smeby made to his girlfriend, which was then shared with the nurse. Smeby was charged with driving under the influence.

Smeby sought to suppress the medical records and ambulance run sheets during an omnibus hearing arguing the records were privileged. The trial court concluded that neither the physician-patient privilege nor the nurse-patient privilege applied to protected Smeby’s statement to the paramedic or to his girlfriend, or any statement made by his girlfriend to the nurse. A jury then convicted Smeby.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Smeby’s conviction, concluding paramedics are categorically excluded from the physician-patient privilege statute, and the physician-patient privilege statute did not protect Smeby’s statements to his girlfriend (which she then shared with a nurse).

The Supreme Court’s Decision

A. The Physician-Patient Privilege Held Inapplicable.

When considering Smeby’s appeal to Minnesota’s Supreme Court three points controlled the decision: (i) the physician-patient privilege is “solely a creature of statute,” not the common law; (ii) the physician-patient privilege statute is generally construed narrowly; and (iii) the statute does not expressly include “paramedics.”

The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ categorical exclusion. Unlike the Court of Appeals that relied solely on the plain language of the statute and its failure to list paramedics, the Supreme Court considered an exception. The Supreme Court explained the physician-patient statutory privilege may be extended to communications between paramedics and patients if a paramedic is acting “under the direction” of a treating physician such that there is an agency relationship with the physician.

The Supreme Court allocated to the patient the burden of establishing whether a paramedic is “acting under the direction of [a] physician” within the context of an agency relationship. Smeby, however, provided insufficient evidence to establish such a relationship.

Accordingly, because the physician-patient privilege statute does not expressly include communications with “paramedics” within its scope, and because the paramedic assisting Smeby was not acting under the direction of an Emergency Room physician, the Supreme Court determined Smeby’s communications with the paramedic were not shielded by the physician-patient privilege under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd 1(d).

The Supreme Court recognized its decision implicated public policy issues. It justified its narrow application of the physician-patient statute explaining:

“[A]lthough courts must be alert to safeguard the purpose of evidentiary privileges, they must be equally alert to see that these privileges are not enforced in such a blind and sweeping manner that they unnecessarily become vehicles for the suppression of evidence which is not privileged.

Even so, in a footnote, the Supreme Court admitted “there are strong arguments for why the Legislature should expressly add paramedics to the persons listed in the physician-patient privilege statute.” But whether to amend the statute to include paramedics was expressly “left to the Legislature to decide.”

B. The Nurse-Patient Privilege Held Inapplicable.

As a matter of first impression the Supreme Court addressed whether statements made by a third-party about a conscious adult’s medical condition were privileged. Because Smeby’s girlfriend was not necessary to Smeby’s treatment—for example, because Smeby was conscious and interacting with hospital staff—the Supreme Court concluded the statement Smeby made to his girlfriend, who then shared the statement with a nurse, is not protected by the nurse-patient privilege under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g). If Smeby wanted his heroin use to remain confidential, the Supreme Court explained, he should have communicated it directly to the nurse.

C. The General Privilege Extended to Medical Records Did Not Apply.

Smeby erroneously claimed his statements about heroin use to the paramedic and his girlfriend became privileged as soon as they were transmitted to, or acquired by, a healthcare provider and put into his medical records.

The Supreme Court rejected Smeby’s argument that attempted to create a derivative privilege. It held that the status of a communication does not change simply because it is documented in a privileged record.

This holding will prevent patients from shielding otherwise admissible evidence simply because it is contained in an otherwise privileged document.

The Supreme Court reiterated its previous conclusions that the statements were not privileged when made. Therefore, it determined the general rule that written medical records are covered by the physician-patient privilege did not apply here.

The Significance of the Smeby Decision

The Smeby decision is significant for several reasons.

First, in defending against personal injury claims, there is no longer a categorical privilege (at least in Minnesota) for statements made to paramedics. This is important because paramedics often are the first on the scene of an injury and receive key information from the injured party. Those statements are often closer to the truth than subsequent refined statements, which are often offered after injured parties retain legal counsel to pursue damages claims. If medical records are withheld based on a claim of physician-patient or nursing-patient privilege, those claims of privilege may be subject to valid challenges.

Second, the Supreme Court sent a clarion call to the Minnesota Legislature. If that call is received, the physician-patient privilege statute may soon be legislatively expanded to expressly protect communications with “paramedics.” If the Legislature acts on this, then it must carefully craft privilege protections that do not terminate the specific waiver of medical privilege already provided with respect to communications concerning “the same physical, mental, or blood condition” voluntarily placed at issue in civil litigation by a party (see Minn. R. Civ. P. 35.03)—although the Legislature could clarify that any broadened or clarified statute applies to communications that are not voluntarily placed at issue by a party.

Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to impose a “categorical rule” limiting the physician-patient statutory privilege to the plain language of the statute. Instead, it recognized a limited exception to the statute through which an agency theory could potentially be used to circumvent otherwise harsh applications of the physician-patient statutory privilege. Having recognized this exception to the plain language reading of the statute, it may be just a matter of time until this exception is asserted (perhaps even successfully) to avoid the application of other statutes based on their plain language.

Fourth, the Supreme Court’s decision manifests a policy of not allowing individuals to shield statements that could undermine public safety. The Court placed public safety over confidentiality concerns.

Fifth, the Minnesota Supreme Court sent a clear message that statements made by third parties incidental to treatment that could have been made by the patient may not be protected by the physician-patient or nurse-patient privilege.

Bowman and Brooke to Sponsor PLAC Spring Conference

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to sponsor the Product Liability Advisory Council’s (PLAC) 2026 Spring Conference in Washington, D.C. from March 25 – 27. This event will explore a year-in-review of the product liability space. Attendees will benefit from learning from experts and professionals on upcoming trends within the industry and product liability space. Attendees will learn firsthand how to be prepared for what 2026 has in store.

Tom Branigan:

"Trial Masters: Lessons from Legends"

Wendy Lumish:

"High Stakes: The Case for Including Appellate Counsel as Part of Your Trial Team"

"Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Honoring John Thomas"

"Amicus Program - 2025 Year in Review: Hot Topics, Developments and Emerging Issues"

Amanda Heitz:

"Women's Forum Discussion"

Paul Alarcón:

"Amicus Program - 2025 Year in Review: Hot Topics, Developments and Emerging Issues"

To learn more, visit

Bowman and Brooke Presents ACI’s Automotive Litigation, Regulation & Innovation Summit as Title Sponsor

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Held in Chicago March 10-12, this year’s conference, the 14th annual, will bring together top experts from across the automotive industry who will explore law and policy updates, MDL and & class action concerns and & much more.

Bowman and Brooke Executive Managing Partner Tom Branigan of the firm’s Detroit office co-presents, “A Comprehensive Look at the Complexity of the Jury: Selecting, Framing & Winning the Room, Part I.” Columbia office Co-Managing Partner Patrick Cleary is co-presenting, “AV & ADAS: Aligning Validation, Warnings & Duty of Care.”

On the third day of the conference, ACI will host its 2nd Annual EV Battery and Advanced Technology Supply Chain and Compliance Summit, bringing together thought leaders from the automotive and battery sectors for a full day of collaborative discussion focused on tackling these complex and urgent challenges, with particular focus on the legal implications surrounding Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).

Detroit Partner Nick Even will co-present “Battery Safety 2026: Preventing Fires, Proving Safety, & Containing Claims.” Nick Prudenzano, Senior Counsel in the firm’s Miami office, co-presents, “The ADAS Illusion: How Overreliance Create New Theories of Negligence.”

For more information on the conference, please click here. You may also take advantage of Bowman and Brooke’s exclusive discount code S10-661-661L26.S, for those interested in attending.

Matin Fallahi Recognized as a 2026 Michigan Lawyers Weekly Up & Coming Lawyer

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to share that Matin Fallahi, an Associate in the firm’s Detroit office, has been named a 2026 Up & Coming Lawyer by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. This recognition honors attorneys in their first 10 years of practice who have distinguished themselves as standouts among their peers and emerging leaders in the legal profession.

Matin is an immigrant and first-generation lawyer of Persian background. In her five years of practice, she has established herself as a critical asset to the firm and its clients. Her work includes managing complex cases and representing some of the largest automotive manufacturers in North America, including BMW and Mercedes-Benz, while also acting as Michigan counsel for a major automotive retailer.

This past year, Matin served on the defense team in a national headline-making Mercedes-Benz trial that resulted in one of the largest defense verdicts in Michigan. The case drew national attention due to the prominence of the plaintiffs’ family. During the nearly six-week trial, she handled pre-trial motions, trial outlines, strategy, demonstrative exhibits, motion drafting, and expert preparation. The jury unanimously found the vehicle was not defectively designed, delivering a complete defense verdict.

Matin is also deeply committed to mentorship, diversity, and community involvement. She was selected as a 2025 Pathfinder for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, served two consecutive years as Vice President of the Defense Research Institute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Steering Committee, and is active in Bowman and Brooke’s DEI Committee.

Her dedication to her clients, the firm, and the community, along with her accomplishments, is reflected in her work and service and supports her recognition as a Michigan Lawyers Weekly 2026 Up & Coming Lawyer.

To see all of the 2026 Up & Coming Lawyers, click here.

Bowman and Brooke is a Signature Sponsor for 2026 DRI Product Liability Conference

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to be a Signature Sponsor of the Defense Research Institute’s (DRI) 2026 Product Liability Conference, held February 18–20, 2026 at the Hyatt San Antonio Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas.

The conference focuses on innovative defense strategies in a changing legal landscape and brings together product liability defense counsel, in-house attorneys, and industry professionals for interactive sessions, case studies, and technology-focused programming addressing emerging issues in product liability litigation.

Bowman and Brooke attorneys attending the conference include Managing Partner Jeff Warren, Co-Managing Partner C.J. Schoenwetter; Partners Dave Campbell, Greg Mroz, and Dennis Ziemba; and Senior Counsel C. Prentice Schanz.

To learn more about the conference and networking events, click here.

Three Bowman and Brooke Attorneys Selected to Participate in LCLD’s 2026 Fellows and Pathfinders Program

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke LLP is thrilled to announce that three attorneys, Luke C. Spencer, Nicole Arcodia, and Lydia C. Tsao, have been selected to participate in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD) 2026 Fellows and Pathfinders Program.

Luke, a partner in the firm’s Dallas office, focuses his practice on defending product manufacturers, particularly automotive and emerging technology clients, in complex product liability litigation, including catastrophic personal injury, class actions and multidistrict matters.

Nicole, of counsel in the Charlotte office, represents clients in the financial services industry and in complex commercial litigation.

Lydia, based in the Austin office, focuses her practice on complex product liability and personal injury litigation, representing clients in high-stakes matters and delivering strategic advocacy across trial and appellate proceedings.

Luke will represent the firm as its 2026 LCLD Fellow, while Nicole and Lydia have been named Pathfinders. Firm leadership identified them as rising stars who are deserving of this opportunity designed to support and propel their continued growth.

The Pathfinder and Fellow programs are year-long action programs designed for high-potential attorneys at different stages of their careers. Participants gain insights from top legal leaders, as well as learning and development experts and executive coaches. The Pathfinder Program is designed for early-career attorneys with diverse backgrounds and offers a structured journey that builds leadership skills, fosters meaningful connections, and enhances career development. The Fellow Program is designed for high-potential mid-career attorneys and focuses on developing leadership skills, strengthening professional networks, and refining career development strategy.

Pathfinders are selected by the leaders at LCLD Member corporations and law firms, having been identified as early-career emerging leaders in their own right who have distinguished—or have the potential to distinguish—themselves within their organizations.

Congratulations to Luke, Nicole, and Lydia on being recognized as rising stars within the firm and the broader legal community.

2026 Future Defense Lawyer Scholarship is Announced by Bowman and Brooke Foundation

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 00:00:00 -0600

The Bowman and Brooke Foundation is now accepting applications for its 2026 Future Defense Lawyer Scholarship, an initiative designed to support law students interested in pursuing a career in civil defense litigation.

The scholarship will award up to two recipients $10,000 each and is open to current first-year (1L) law students who plan to continue full-time enrollment at an ABA-accredited law school for their second (2L) academic year. Applicants should also have a demonstrated interest in representing defendants in civil litigation matters.

The Future Defense Lawyer Scholarship reflects the Bowman and Brooke Foundation’s commitment to supporting the next generation of defense attorneys and advancing excellence in the legal profession.

Application deadline: March 2, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. CT

Learn more and apply here.

Our New Year's Evolution: Announcing 2026 New Partner and Senior Counsel Promotions

Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke LLP is pleased to announce the promotion of six attorneys to Partner and two attorneys to Senior Counsel, effective January 1, 2026. Their leadership and excellence strengthen our ability to deliver the highest level of service to those we represent.

Partner Appointments
Alexander J. Egbert – Phoenix
Abigail A. Golden – Charlotte
Colton Parks – Orange County
Tamara L. Rollins – Minneapolis
Leanna L. H. Vault – San Jose
Damion M. Young – Orange County

Senior Counsel Appointments
Sunny Rehsi – Detroit
Taylor Silverberg – Miami

“These promotions reflect our long-term commitment to excellence, leadership, and client service,” said Frank Hosley, Firm Chair of Bowman and Brooke. “Each of these attorneys has demonstrated not only exceptional legal skill and sound judgment, but also a deep understanding of our clients’ businesses and the challenges they face. Elevating them strengthens our ability to deliver consistent, high-quality defense across jurisdictions while investing in the future of the firm.”

Firm Vice Chair Jodi Munn Schebel added, “Advancing attorneys to Partner and Senior Counsel is about more than recognizing individual achievement—it’s about ensuring our clients continue to benefit from experienced, engaged leaders who are deeply committed to their success. These elevations enhance our bench strength, reinforce our collaborative culture, and position Bowman and Brooke to continue providing strategic, trial-ready representation at the highest level.”

Please join us in congratulating these outstanding individuals on their well-deserved promotions.

Three Columbia, SC Attorneys Featured in ACC South Carolina Focus Newsletter

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Patrick Cleary, Courtney Shytle and Samuel Boyd recently published the article, "South Carolina's 2025 Tort and Liquor Liability Reform Bill - Virtue Tempered by Cloudiness" in the ACC South Carolina Focus newsletter.

You’re approaching the end of 2025. With the most recent legal department reorganization, you’re now responsible for all litigation in the Carolinas. You’ve got a wide panoply of cases – on a typical day you have some employment matters, commercial litigation, insurance coverage disputes, premises liability, products liability, company owned vehicle crash cases and toxic tort cases. You’ve got several tort cases with multiple defendants.

In projecting your exposure in 2026 and whether you want your outside counsel to push some of these cases to trial, you recall that settled parties and non-parties have not been permitted to be on the verdict form in South Carolina. But you also recall seeing news articles about South Carolina’s tort and liquor liability reform bill, H. 3430, passing this summer. You turn to the new statute for some guidance and see that joint and several liability has been adjusted and that non-parties and settled parties can now appear on the verdict form. You think this is a reasonable and appropriate change, and one that will be significant for how you evaluate your defense strategy in 2026.

And make no mistake, a tort reform bill of this magnitude in South Carolina is significant. But upon closer inspection, the General Assembly carved out deep exceptions into its rules about non-party inclusion. The interplay of endless combinations of claims, parties, and non-parties will likely instigate further motions practice through courtrooms statewide as litigants, their counsel, and courts attempt to extract clarity from this new scheme.

This article highlights these changes and areas of ambiguity that must be resolved before litigants can accurately predict who will appear on the verdict form. The most sweeping reform touches the core of how fault and financial responsibility is allocated among defendants, but the bill simultaneously adjusts who can be identified for a jury’s consideration of fault at trial. But such reforms are not immediate.

Continue reading the article here.

Happy Holidays from Bowman and Brooke! Watch our 40th Anniversary & Holiday Video

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Closing out our 40th Anniversary year with a look at where we began, and with excitement for the road ahead. Thank you to our clients for your trust and support on this journey. Happy Holidays from us to you. Here’s to THE NEXT 40!

Bowman and Brooke Recognized by LCLD as a 2025 Top Performer and Compass Award Winner

Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 -0600

We are honored to be named once again by Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) as a Top Performer (four times) and Compass Award winner (seven times) which recognizes law firms and corporations that show a strong commitment to building a more inclusive legal profession.

As a firm, Bowman and Brooke advocates for investing in future leaders and remains dedicated to inclusion in the legal profession. Our involvement in inclusion is one of our core values, woven into the fabric of our firm culture. We value collaboration where each team member plays a vital role in serving our clients and are committed to providing ongoing opportunities for growth and professional development.

LCLD is comprised of more than 400 corporate chief legal officers and law firm managing partners—the profession’s top leaders—who are committed to creating an environment where all talent can thrive, with the ultimate goal of strengthening and diversifying the legal profession.

The Top Performer award recognizes those organizations in the top 20 percent for participation in LCLD programs and activities.

The Compass Award recognizes those individuals and organizations that fulfill all the following requirements in a single calendar year:

Member (Managing Partner/General Counsel) engagement with LCLD;
Nominate an LCLD Fellow;
Nominate an LCLD Pathfinder;
Participate in an LCLD pipeline program (the 1L Scholars Program or the Success in Law School Mentoring Program).

This recognition reflects the dedication of our attorneys who continue to support inclusion in the legal profession. We are proud to share for 2025 that our Firm Chair Frank Hosley is part of Member Engagement, Partner Eleni Swank represents the Fellows and Associates, Ricardo Azcarraga and Taylor Silverberg represent the Pathfinders and Managing Partner Roshan Rajkumar and Associate Sunny Rehsi were paired as mentors for the Success in Law School Mentoring Program.

Bowman and Brooke Recognized by Benchmark Litigation for Product Liability

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to share our Tier 2 ranking on Benchmark Litigation’s National Product Liability and Recall list. Benchmark Litigation ranks firms based on extensive research, including peer and client feedback, casework analysis and firm interviews. Rankings assess firms' strength in handling high-stakes litigation, with tiered recognition reflecting firms’ capabilities in specific practice areas and jurisdictions. This recognition shows our dedication to providing exceptional defense in complex product liability cases for clients nationwide and reflects the strength of our deep bench of first chair trial attorneys. As we mark our 40th anniversary and surpass 1,000 trials, we remain focused on delivering results in high exposure and high stakes litigation for our clients.

In addition to our national recognition, we are proud to share that several of our top trial lawyers were recognized by their state:

Arizona
Paul Cereghini Local Litigation Star

California
Vince Galvin Local Litigation Star, National Practice Area Star, and California Litigation Star

Florida
Wendy Lumish Local Litigation Star and Top 250 Women in Litigation

Texas
Randy Christian Local Litigation Star

Minnesota
Bard Borkon Local Litigation Star and Future Star
Kim Schmid Local Litigation Star

South Carolina
Joel Smith Local Litigation Star and National Practice Area Star

Executive Managing Partner Tom Branigan Named Lawyer of the Year by Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to announce that Executive Managing Partner Tom Branigan has been named Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Lawyer of the Year.

A legendary trial lawyer with more than 40 years of experience, Tom is recognized nationally for his leadership in high-exposure “bet-the-company” automotive product liability litigation across the automotive industry for clients including BMW, Ford, Mercedes and GM. His dedication, skill and long-standing reputation as one of the country’s top trial lawyers continue to elevate our firm and save his clients billions of dollars.

Tom helped launch Bowman and Brooke’s Detroit office from a temporary space near General Motors’ headquarters into one of the firm’s most successful offices. As a member of the Executive Committee and Co-Chair of the Automotive Practice Group, he plays a strategic role in shaping the firm’s national vision while continuing to lead from the front lines of trial work.

Tom has served as trial counsel for many of the world’s top automotive manufacturers, defending catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases from coast to coast. His trial experience spans matters involving technology as straightforward as door-handle mechanisms to advanced autonomous driving systems.

This past year, Tom delivered two major defense verdicts that turned billion-dollar claims into decisive victories:

Moore v. Mercedes-Benz (March 2025)
Serving as first chair, Tom secured a unanimous defense verdict in a six-week Wayne County trial rejecting a $2 billion wrongful death claim. The case drew national attention due to the prominence of the plaintiffs and was among the largest civil trials in Michigan this year.

Sims v. BMW (September 2025)
Tom defended BMW in an airbag injury case in Orlando, Florida. After eight days of trial, the jury unanimously found no fault against the manufacturer and reduced a $1.2 billion demand to a $147,000 net award.

Tom’s recognition as Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Lawyer of the Year reflects his outstanding courtroom achievements, his decades of leadership in the automotive industry and the trust his clients place in him. We are honored to celebrate this major career accomplishment.

Bowman and Brooke Earns 19 Rankings in 2026 Best Law Firms List

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is honored to receive recognition in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms in the United States by Best Lawyers, receiving nine Tier 1 rankings, eight Tier 2 rankings, two Tier 3 rankings and increasing our total number of rankings year over year by five, for an impressive total of 19 rankings.

We are proud to receive five new 2026 rankings in Baltimore, Charlotte and Dallas, including:

Baltimore: Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (Tier 2)
Charlotte: Mass Tort Litigation/Class Action – Defendants (Tier 1)
Charlotte: Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (Tier 1)
Dallas: Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (Tier 1)
Dallas: Mass Tort Litigation/Class Action – Defendants (Tier 2)

In addition to the new rankings, we are also excited to announce our Dallas ranking for Product Liability Litigation – Defendants increased from Tier 3 to Tier 2.

Firms included in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms in the United States are recognized for professional excellence with consistently strong ratings from clients and peers. Rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation that includes client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in the field and review of additional information submitted during the formal process.

We are grateful to our clients for trusting us on a national scale with important work that allows us to receive this incredible recognition. Our full list of rankings includes:

Metropolitan Tier 1

Charlotte, NC

Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Columbia, SC

Bet-the-Company Litigation
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Dallas, TX

Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

San Jose, CA

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Troy, MI

Commercial Litigation

Metropolitan Tier 2

Austin, TX

Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Baltimore, MD

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Dallas, TX

Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Minneapolis, MN

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

New Brunswick, NJ

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Phoenix, AZ

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Troy, MI

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Metropolitan Tier 3

Columbia, SC

Mediation

Dallas, TX

Litigation – Intellectual Property

Bowman and Brooke to Sponsor and Present at ACI Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference

Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is proud to announce that Partners, Bill Childs and Michael Hecht, will be speaking at ACI’s 30th Annual Conference on Drug & Medical Device Litigation in New York City, December 2-4. Bill will present, "Leveling the Artificial Intelligence Playing Field in Drug & Device Litigation" on December 2, and Michael will present "The Evolution of Runaway Verdicts and Jury Awards" on December 3. Each will explore key issues shaping the industry and offer strategies defense counsel can use to address those challenges.

This year’s conference will focus on several key topics within the drug and medical device industry, ranging from perspectives from the bench to handling attempted emotional appeals in the courtroom. Bill will lead a pre-conference workshop on how AI is being used by defense and plaintiffs’ counsel, while Michael will discuss rising settlement costs and how defense teams can respond to both financial pressures and shifting public sentiment.

Bowman and Brooke is proud to sponsor this year’s conference and is honored to have two industry leaders, each with 25 years of experience, recognized on the national level. For more information on the conference, click here.

Tom Branigan Named a 2025 Leaders in Law Honoree by Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0500

We are proud to share that Tom Branigan has been named one of Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Leaders in the Law. This recognition highlights not only Tom’s remarkable year in the courtroom but also his history with the firm and impact on our Detroit office.

Tom was one of the founding attorneys of our Detroit office, helping launch it from temporary space in a hotel across the street from General Motors and growing it into the strong presence it is today. He now serves on our Executive Committee, guiding the firm’s national vision while continuing to lead from the front lines of trial work. Over his career, Tom has first-chaired more than 30 trials and second-chaired nearly a dozen more, establishing himself as one of the best in the courtroom.

Tom has also played a key role in building the firm’s Automotive Practice Group, our largest practice area. The group represents nearly all the world’s leading automotive manufacturers and suppliers. As Co-Chair, Tom has pioneered and expanded the firm’s depth of experience in defending product liability matters ranging from rollovers and catastrophic crashes to cases involving advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), autonomous vehicles and other emerging technologies.

Automotive is in Tom’s DNA, and it’s clear why our clients turn to him for high-stakes litigation, 2025 has been an impressive year with these two major trial victories:

Sims v. BMW (September 2025): In the hometown of plaintiff’s counsel, Orlando, FL, Tom’s team won a defense verdict that cut a $1.2 billion demand down to a $147,000 net award, saving the client over a billion dollars.

Moore v. Mercedes-Benz (March 2025): Serving as first chair in a six-week Michigan trial, Tom secured a unanimous defense verdict that rejected a $2 billion claim. This was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, verdicts in Michigan this year and drew national attention given the prominence of the plaintiffs.

Congratulations to Tom on this well-earned recognition as one of Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Leaders in the Law! To view the 2025 Leaders in Law Honorees, click here.

Law360 Features Bowman and Brooke’s Ann Motl’s Key Concepts to Document Review

Wed, 17 Sep 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Senior Counsel, Ann Motl discusses seven key concepts new attorneys should understand to make the most of a document review platform — whether managing a production, reviewing documents or preparing for depositions. Many of the tips assume the documents you are working with are from your client and are in your document review platform, rather than documents you have received from the other side. Click here to read the full Law360 article.

Minnesota Supreme Court Doubles Down On Rejecting Federal Pleading Standards

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 -0500

On September 10, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court rendered its decision in Hoskin v. Krsnak, which plainly: (i) clarifies general notice pleading standards apply rather than the heightened code pleading standards that preceded the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, and (ii) once again rejects the “heightened” pleading standards applied in federal court.

The significance of Minnesota’s lower pleading standard manifests itself by the Minnesota’ Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that “plaintiff[s] face[] a lower burden to state a claim for relief and survive a motion to dismiss in Minnesota State Court than they would in federal court.” (Emphasis in original.)

Plaintiffs Do Not Have To Plead Around Affirmative Defenses

In Minnesota state court it is now clear that “a motion to dismiss based on an affirmative defense may be granted only if the allegations in the complaint, construed in the plaintiff’s favor, establish an unrebuttable defense.”

In other words, “‘[o]nly when the plaintiff pleads itself out of court—that is, admits all the ingredients of an impenetrable defense—may a complaint that otherwise states a claim be dismissed’ for failure to state a claim.” Accordingly, a plaintiff’s complaint is not required to include facts that are sufficient to rebut a potential affirmative defense.

The mere presence of a potential affirmative defense is insufficient. Dismissal is appropriate “only when it is clear from the stated allegations in the complaint” that an affirmative defense bars the complaint.

Minnesota replaced code pleading with notice pleading in 1951 when it adopted Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 8.01.

The Hoskin decision reinforces the Rule 8.01 standard that only a “short and plain statement” is required to survive a motion to dismiss. It rejects the prior code pleading standard that would have required a “potentially long, complex statement with allegations that not only set forth the plaintiff’s legal claims but also anticipate and rebut the defendant’s affirmative defenses” that may never be asserted.

Justice Procaccini, who wrote the Court’s unanimous decision, explained the burden rests on defendants:

[T]he defendant must show that the allegations in the complaint establish each element of an affirmative defense to secure dismissal based on that defense. This standard ensures that a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss unless the complaint itself sets forth the elements of an unrebuttable affirmative defense . . [.]

Minnesota Again Rejects the Federal Pleading Standard

The Supreme Court relied on case law from other jurisdictions, including case law from federal courts, in reaching its decision in Hoskin. But it nonetheless reiterated its prior rejection of the “heightened” pleading standard set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombly decisions requiring that a complaint contain facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief:

[T]he heightened [pleading] standard [of federal court] does not apply in Minnesota because our rules reflect “a preference for non-technical, broad-brush pleadings” that merely put the opposing party on notice of the claims against it.

Hoskin reinforces the need for vigilance by defendants in diligently removing cases to federal court where the heightened pleading standard may result in the dismissal of more cases at the Rule 12 motion to dismiss stage of proceedings.

Details from the Hoskin Case

In Hoskin, the plaintiff brough claims against defendants who were long time business partners. Plaintiff’s claims were based on several transfer agreements. Defendants brought a Rule 12 motion to dismiss arguing the release provisions in the transfer agreements released them from liability. Although the complaint did not reference the releases, or contain the word “release,” the trial court considered the transfer agreements because the complaint expressly referred to those agreements.

The trial court found in favor of defendants and granted the motion. It concluded that for plaintiff to avoid the effect of the releases in the transfer agreements on grounds of duress, plaintiff was required to plead facts demonstrating plaintiff had, or had attempted to, return the consideration received for signing the transfer agreements. Because no such facts had been pleaded, the complaint was dismissed.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court on different grounds. It concluded the trial court erred by determining plaintiff was required to return the consideration received to void the transfer agreements. Instead, it affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that plaintiff’s pleadings related to duress and fraud were insufficient to invalidate the releases. Specifically, the court of appeals reasoned the releases were fatal to plaintiff’s claims because the allegations in the complaint did not state a claim for duress or fraud and therefore could not invalidate the releases.

Plaintiff filed a petition for further review with the Supreme Court raising six grounds for review. Review was granted. But before after the initial briefing submitted by the parties, and before oral argument, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing on a “threshold issue” that it described as “dispositive.” Specifically, it requested supplemental briefing on “whether a plaintiff’s complaint must include facts sufficient to rebut a potential affirmative defense.”

Important Takeaways From The Hoskin Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision once again separates Minnesota from the federal courts and several state courts that apply the less permissive plausibility pleading standard. This may result in forum-shopping plaintiffs to select Minnesota as the venue for filing their lawsuits.

The Hoskin decision provides an incentive for plaintiffs’ counsel to file their cases in Minnesota state court rather than federal court because the Supreme Court made clear that the threshold for dismissal is “lower.” As a result, fewer cases will initially be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This may result in backlogs in state court and further delay case resolutions.

The continued application of notice pleading in Minnesota state court highlights the importance of timely removal to federal court. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), generally provides defendants 30 days to remove cases to federal court. Given the decision in Hoskin, failure to timely remove an action now could mean the difference between having a case dismissed immediately pursuant to a Rule 12 motion in federal court, or having to bring a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment in state court after the conclusion of discovery.

Additionally, the Hoskin decision narrows the scope of cases in which affirmative defenses can be raised successfully in a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. On its face, Hoskin’s holding limits the utility of affirmative defenses as a basis for immediate dismissal to situations in which the complaint contains allegations, that when construed in plaintiff’s favor, establish an unrebuttable defense.

An open question remains, however, regarding whether a plaintiff may strategically refer to a document in a complaint (e.g., a contract) without attaching the document and still avoid dismissal based on an affirmative defense that can be unequivocally established by reference to portions of the document not mentioned in the complaint. A literal reading of the Hoskin decision indicates this may be the case. Such an application, though, would overturn significant precedent holding that courts may consider documents embraced by a complaint, that are central to a plaintiff’s claims, when deciding a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court in this case expressly considered the transfer agreements referred to (but not attached to) the complaint. But it did not rely on those transfer agreements to dismiss the complaint—thus leaving open the issue for a definitive determination in a future decision.

Announcing the 2025 Recipients of the Bowman and Brooke Foundation Future Defense Lawyer Scholarship

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Congratulations to our third annual Bowman and Brooke Foundation Future Defense Lawyer Scholarship Recipients: Norberto Ortiz Colon (Second-Year Law Student, Charleston School of Law, South Carolina) and Daniela Zurbaran (Second-Year Law Student, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.)!

Bowman and Brooke advocates for investing in future leaders and remains strongly committed to diversity, equity and inclusion in the legal profession. In 2023, we debuted our scholarship program for law students who self-identified as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, LGBTQIA+ and/or individuals with disabilities.

Funded by the Bowman and Brooke Foundation, the scholarship requires recipients to be enrolled full-time in an ABA-accredited law school for the entire upcoming academic year. The Bowman and Brooke Foundation is a non-profit corporation dedicated to charitable contributions and other financial support of community service activities aligned with the goals of the firm’s partners, employees and clients.

Ben Anderson Awarded 2025 Deb Oberlander New Lawyer Award by MDLA

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 -0500

We are thrilled to share that Bowman and Brooke Senior Counsel Ben Anderson (Minneapolis), has been awarded the 2025 Deb Oberlander New Lawyer Award by the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. The award recognizes members who exemplify the energy and passion for MDLA that Deb Oberlander exhibited through her service. Ben has consistently defended clients from a variety of claims, mainly focusing his practice on defending major automotive manufacturers. He also has a history of defending drug and device manufacturers and is a flexible thinker who always finds solutions to everyday problems. This attention to detail and critical thinking is what made Ben a competitive candidate for the award.

Surge in Auto Lawsuits Post-AB 1755 Raises Red Flags for OEM Legal Teams

Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Los Angeles Partner Rick Stuhlbarg was interviewed and quoted by the Los Angeles Daily Journal on the surge of new lemon lawsuits in California since the passage of AB 1755 which had the aim of reducing California courts’ civil court backlog. “Despite the lemon law changes, we have seen a big spike in filings,” he said. “If the goal of the changes was to lessen the burden on the courts by reducing the number of filings and litigated cases, the objective data does not show that has happened.” Rick provided data collected by Bowman and Brooke that there have been 19,359 filings through June 2025, putting this year on pace to surpass 38,000 total filings. That would exceed the 30,190 filings recorded in 2024. By comparison, there were 22,655 filings in 2023, 14,892 in 2022 and 10,797 in 2021.

As of September 30, filings are at nearly 26,000.

Click here to read the full article.

Minnesota Supreme Court Confirms Preverdict Interest Calculation Does Not Include Collateral Sources Deducted From the Jury Verdict

Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 -0500

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently rejected an attempted double recovery when calculating preverdict interest.

On August 13, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed the purpose of preverdict interest is to compensate plaintiffs for the lost time-value of money not yet received. It clarified that if interest was awarded on money plaintiffs had already received (i.e., awarding preverdict interest on money received from collateral sources) that would provide plaintiffs with more than full compensation—“a consequence the Legislature [“likely”] did not intend when enacting [Minnesota’s statute governing interest on verdicts, awards and judgments].”

In Scheurer v. Shrewsbury, the Supreme Court addressed two issues: (1) whether a prevailing party is entitled to preverdict interest on the full amount of a verdict, or on a lesser amount entered as a judgment and reflecting the jury verdict amount less sums previously obtained from collateral sources such as payments received on account of health, automobile and other insurance coverages and benefits; and (2) whether serving a written offer of settlement negates the requirement that an action must be commenced within two years for preverdict interest to begin to accrue.

With respect to the second issue, the Supreme Court confirmed that a written offer of a settlement does not negate the statutory requirement that an action must be commenced within two years of a written notice of claim for preverdict interest to begin accruing from the time a party serves its notice of claim.

This article focuses on the first issue. Specifically, it focuses on the calculation of preverdict interest pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 549.09, subdivision 1(b) when the verdict amount is reduced by payments from collateral sources. Further details about the Scheurer v. Shrewsbury preverdict interest calculation are discussed below.

Ultimately, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that under Minnesota’s statute governing interest on verdicts (i.e., Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subdivision 1(b)), a prevailing party is entitled to preverdict interest on the judgment, which does not include collateral sources deducted from the jury verdict.

In the Scheurer case, the jury rendered a verdict awarding Scheurer a total of $292,340 in compensatory damages. The defendant moved for determination of collateral sources and reduction of the damage award. As a result, the district court reduced the total jury verdict from $292,340 to $194,631 based on its determination of the collateral source payments received by the plaintiff.

Scheurer sought to add preverdict interest. He argued preverdict interest should be calculated on the $292,340 total jury verdict, before the collateral source reductions. Defendant responded that preverdict interest should be calculated on the $194,631 net jury verdict, after the collateral source reductions. The trial court held in favor of the defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s order concerning the award of preverdict interest.

The Supreme Court weighed whether to calculate preverdict or prejudgment interest based on the amount of damages awarded by the jury before deducting the compensation plaintiff already received from collateral sources or after deducting the compensation from collateral sources. The Supreme Court explained that “[t]he purpose of providing preverdict interest is to compensate the plaintiff for the lost time-value of that money, and that purpose is not served if a plaintiff is awarded interest on money the plaintiff actually and already received.”

The Supreme Court appears to have accepted the defendant’s argument that awarding preverdict interest on collateral sources from insurance benefits would amount to a double recovery. In doing so, the Supreme Court implicitly rejected the notion that preverdict interest is an element of compensatory damages to reimburse plaintiffs for the premiums they paid for insurance policies that provide those benefits.

The Supreme Court explained that allowing plaintiffs “to collect interest on money they obtained months before the jury returns its verdict compensates a plaintiff for money they are not owed,” and “may provide a plaintiff with more than full compensation.”

For example, using the amounts at issue in the Scheurer case, if a court calculated interest on a jury verdict amount of $292,340 at the statutory rate of 10%, preverdict interest would accrue at a rate of $29,234 per year. In contrast, calculating interest on a judgment amount of $194,613 provides for interest to accrue in the amount of $19,461.30 per year—a reduction of $9,772.70 per year in accrued preverdict interest. With statutory preverdict interest beginning to accrue up to two (2) years before commencement of an action, and many cases taking well-over a year to reach verdict, the savings realized by calculating preverdict interest on the verdict amount less collateral payments potentially provides considerable reductions to the ultimate judgment amount entered by a court.

While the Scheurer case initially may not appear significant because the verdict was under $300,000, the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision may manifest more clearly in nuclear verdict cases which involve larger damages amounts and can span for several years. Additionally, the Scheurer case provides further grounds for rejecting inflated settlement demands seeking to leverage settlement on unsupportable calculations of preverdict interest.

Lastly, although Scheurer involved Minnesota law, it provides a potential opportunity in other jurisdictions to seek a similar reduction in the ultimate amount of a judgment by deducting collateral source payments prior to calculating accrued preverdict interest.

Read the opinion here.

Robert Brundage and Kimberley Parrish Receive Yancey Award for Excellence in Legal Writing

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 -0500

We are pleased to share that Robert Brundage and Kimberley Parrish have received the Yancey Award, presented by the International Association of Defense Counsel for Excellence in Legal Writing. The Yancey Award is given each year for the best article published in the Defense Counsel Journal over the past year. Their article, “Article III Standing to Appeal in Federal Court: What Business Lawyers Need to Know,” was published in the journal in October 2024.

To read the article, click here.

California Court of Appeal Rules Against Manufacturer on ADAS Claim

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 -0500

In a case whose implications are likely to ripple through the automotive industry, the California Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for Daimler Trucks North America in Ortiz v. Daimler Trucks N. Am., a lawsuit alleging that Daimler Trucks was liable for failing to equip a heavy truck with optional collision avoidance technology. The Court of Appeal focused on the issues of proximate cause and duty, concluding that the plaintiffs could reach a jury on their strict liability design defect and design negligence claims.

This case arises out of a crash between a heavy truck and a passenger vehicle. In 2020, Lupe Ortiz and a passenger were stopped at a traffic light when the driver of an 80,000-pound Daimler Cascadia approached from the rear. The Cascadia driver did not brake and rear-ended the passenger vehicle at a speed of 55 miles-per-hour, killing Ortiz and her passenger. Ortiz’s children sued Daimler Trucks for strict liability and negligent design because the truck was not equipped with a feature called “Detroit Assurance 4.0,” a forward collision warning and automatic braking system designed to alert the driver, and “autonomously slow the truck” to “fully brake for stationary objects in the truck’s path” and engage brakes “when a pedestrian moves into the truck’s path.”

When the Cascadia was made and sold, Detroit Assurance 4.0 was an optional feature, though Daimler Trucks had announced that it would be sold as standard equipment. Still, the dealership that purchased this Cascadia did not order the feature.

Daimler Trucks moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that they failed because the truck did not cause the collision and because the Cascadia was not defective. Daimler Trucks also argued that it had no duty to prevent or mitigate the crash. The trial court granted the motion, finding that an attentive driver could have avoided the crash without this feature. Then, it concluded that as a matter of law, the plaintiffs could not prove proximate cause or that Daimler Trucks owed a duty of care.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, focusing on the issues of proximate cause and duty. It concluded that whether the Cascadia’s allegedly defective design proximately caused Ortiz’s death was a question of fact for a jury. It concluded that the evidence “supports the conclusion that it is reasonably foreseeable that some truck drivers . . . will rear-end cars on the road after failing to timely brake,” that Detroit Assurance 4.0 was designed to avoid these crashes and could have been installed “at a relatively low cost,” and had the Cascadia been equipped with it “the accident that killed Ortiz would not have occurred.” Therefore, it concluded that a reasonable juror could find that the absence of Assurance 4.0 caused the crash even if there were other proximate causes.

With respect to duty, the Court clarified that duty is not an element of strict products liability, but addressed it substantively in the context of the plaintiffs’ negligent design claim. Applying the factors outlined in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113, it concluded that there was no exception for ADAS technology to the duty of care to all persons within the range of potential danger. The Court concluded that it is foreseeable that a crash like this could occur and the “connection between Daimler Trucks’ conduct and Ortiz’s death” was “sufficiently close to weigh, at least somewhat, in favor of recognizing a duty of care.” And it rejected Daimler Trucks’ arguments that “too many events had to occur for this accident to happen”—that the traffic had to stop, the truck driver had to fail to stop, and the collision had to occur. It concluded that this was actually “a limited chain of events” and not too attenuated to recognize duty.

Addressing policy factors under Rowland, the Court agreed that it “cannot say that Daimler Trucks engaged in particularly morally blameworthy conduct,” but concluded that the policy of preventing future harm weighed in favor of finding a duty. The Court referred to regulatory history before concluding that “while NHTSA has not yet required forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems in new heavy trucks, we cannot say it approves of manufacturers making these safety features optional.” Finally, the Court addressed the extent of the burden to defendants and concluded that Daimler Trucks “overstat[ed] its case,” emphasizing that retaining a duty “would not mean that commercial truck manufacturers must install collision avoidance systems” or that “manufacturers will be found liable for failing to install novel safety devices that may not be particularly effective, practical, or cost effective.” Instead, the Court stated that the existence of a duty “mean[s] only that manufacturers must exercise due care when choosing whether to install collision avoidance systems.”

Though the Ortiz decision will have a broad impact in ADAS and other advanced technology cases across a variety of industries, it is important to note its limitations as well as the issues the Court did not address.

Ortiz does not address proximate cause arguments that turn on a plaintiff’s inability to show that an ADAS feature would have prevented a particular crash. The Court’s decision paints with broad strokes when discussing what Assurance 4.0 was designed to do—describing it as stopping a truck even for a pedestrian. The Court does not address the limitations of this system—the speeds and driving conditions under which it operates or any evidence tending to show whether it would have stopped the truck here. It is unclear from the Court’s decision whether Daimler Trucks raised or briefed this issue. But in any event, Ortiz should not be read as mandating a denial of summary judgment when the manufacturer presents evidence that under the circumstances of a particular crash, the absent ADAS feature would have been ineffective.

The Ortiz Court also emphasized that it was not addressing breach, noting that Daimler Trucks “often fail[ed] to appreciate the difference between duty and breach.” It emphasized that a court can find manufacturers have a duty to use due care when choosing whether to install equipment, “yet a jury could then, after accounting for case-specific facts, find the manufacturer did not breach this duty when deciding to omit” it.

Finally, the Court did not engage with Daimler Trucks’ argument that the truck was not defective under the risk-benefit test. At the trial court level, Daimler Trucks’ risk-benefit argument “turned solely on causation,” arguing that the design of the truck did not cause plaintiffs’ plaintiffs’ injuries. Therefore, the Court declined to consider whether Daimler Trucks could have been entitled to summary judgment on the question of defect under the risk-benefit test.

The Legal 500 Announces 2025 Rankings

Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 -0500

For the 18th year in a row, Bowman and Brooke has achieved national rankings in The Legal 500. The firm is named to all four Product Liability Defense categories—Automotive, Consumer, Pharmaceutical/Medical Device and Toxic Tort. Additionally, many individual attorneys are recognized.

Automotive – Ranked Tier One for the 18th year in a row

Clients note, “when the rubber meets the road they are ready to bring the fight,' and “'Bowman and Brooke is and has been specialized in product liability defense and is invested in learning emerging technologies in order to properly strategize defending them and standing up for them in court.”

Hall of Fame and Leading Lawyers – Paul Cereghini, Vince Galvin

Practice Heads – Paul Cereghini, Vincent Galvin and Joel Smith

Pharmaceutical/Medical Device – Ranked Tier Two for the 14th year in a row

Clients have said, “Kim Schmid is the entire package, trial prowess, team management and expert solutions.”

Practice Heads and Leading Lawyers – Kim Schmid, Randy Christian

Other Key Lawyers – Chris Carton, Joan Anderson and Marisa Trasatti

Consumer – Ranked Tier Three for the 12th year in a row

Clients include major manufacturers such as The Husqvarna Group, Glock, Yamaha, and Riddell, with matters spanning from concussion litigation to claims involving firearms, child car seats, and outdoor power equipment.

Hall of Fame – Paul Cereghini

Practice Heads – Paul Cereghini, Jeffrey Warren

Next Generation Partners – Amanda Heitz

Other Key Lawyers - David Campbell, Amanda Heitz, Kim Schmid

Toxic Tort – Ranked Tier Three for the 7th year in a row

Bowman and Brooke LLP routinely serves as lead and national counsel in a large variety of toxic torts, including chemical exposure, soil and water contamination, asbestos, as well as other chronic and acute injuries relating to various exposures.

Practice heads – Larry Ramsey, William Auther

Key Lawyers – Roshan Rajkumar, Marisa Trasatti, Robert Scott

To compile the annual rankings, researchers from The Legal 500—including both qualified journalists and lawyers—spent months conducting in-depth research into the market. The primary source of information is the law firms themselves, and the information they provide is often not for public consumption. This allows The Legal 500 to assess firms against one another, practice area by practice area. It also gathers feedback from peers and clients to assess overall visibility and reputation. The process culminates in detailed rankings and editorial.

Click here to access The Legal 500 Bowman and Brooke 2025 rankings.

Chambers USA Recognizes Bowman and Brooke in 2025 Rankings

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Chambers USA continues to recognize Bowman and Brooke as an “Elite” Band 1 firm in the Nationwide Product Liability: Automobile category. The publication notes, “Bowman and Brooke possesses a dedicated product liability defense team, fielding a deep trial bench. The firm is widely considered a market leader in the automotive industry, with a client list that features numerous leading manufacturers. Its broad practice also includes strength in areas such as medical devices and consumer products alongside activity in large-scale consumer class actions."

Bowman and Brooke is also ranked Band 4 by Chambers USA in the Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Torts category. Clients note, “The firm has extensive experience, coupled with organization skills and the lawyers are resourceful, conscientious, and take our litigation goals and make them their own.”

Additionally, Paul Cereghini and Joel Smith are ranked in Band 1 Product Liability Automotive rankings and Band 4 Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Torts rankings.

In addition to the firm’s national product liability rankings, two partners were ranked in state categories.

Executive Managing Partner Wendy F. Lumish is ranked for Litigation: Appellate – Florida, Band 2. Wendy Lumish is an experienced appellate practitioner who specializes in product liability disputes as well as handling cases involving medical malpractice and personal injury claims. Noted as being "exceptionally knowledgeable," Wendy has been ranked for 19 years straight.

Joel Smith is additionally ranked for Litigation: General Commercial – South Carolina, Band 1. Joel Smith frequently advises on mass torts and product liability cases, particularly those concerning the automotive industry. "Joel is a seasoned trial attorney. He has a fantastic personality and has tremendous technical skill in working with experts and in-house witnesses to develop a strong defensive case."

Click here to access Bowman and Brooke's 2025 rankings.

A Monumental Milestone: Bowman and Brooke Surpasses 1,000 Trials

Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke LLP, a nationally recognized trial firm dedicated to defending the world’s largest manufacturers in high-exposure product liability litigation coast to coast, announces the firm has surpassed its 1,000th trial. This milestone affirms their rank as one of the industry’s foremost product liability trial firms in the country.

“Anywhere, anytime, any courthouse has always been more than just a slogan to us,” says Firm Chair Emeritus Paul Cereghini, who has tried more than 50 of those trials for the firm. “It’s who we are. For 40 years, clients have relied on our trial teams to defend their interests where and when they need counsel, often in their most difficult cases. We greatly appreciate that unwavering trust from our clients.”

This achievement is a proud event in the firm’s 40-year story, illuminating the firm’s culture and core values. “As Dick Bowman was known to say, ‘If you’ve done it, it ain’t bragging,’” notes Cereghini.

“When a company is committed to defending the safety of its products, employees and reputation, it needs a trial team with experience—and the confidence—to go to verdict.” says Frank Hosley, Firm Chair and another of the firm’s go-to first chair trial lawyers. “We’re proud to say that’s Bowman and Brooke, and we plan to continue our commitment to be that firm by providing hands-on training and programs for our future trial lawyers.”

Within the 1,000 trial milestone, the firm boasts it has:

Tried cases in 48 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada.
Defended 183 different corporate clients.
Included more than 330 trial lawyers as members of its trial teams throughout its history.
Led trial teams in 388 different courthouses, including in the following state and federal courts:
- the largest U.S. cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas.
- Eight currently designated American Tort Reform Foundation “Judicial Hellholes:” Georgia, Philadelphia, Cook County, California, New York City, Louisiana, St. Louis and Lansing, MI.
- unique venues such as:
  - Portland, ME and Portland, OR
  - Charleston, SC and Charles Town, WV
  - International Falls, MN and Niagara Falls, NY
  - Vacation hot spots: Honolulu, HI; Miami, FL; St. Thomas, VI; Old San Juan, Puerto Rico
  - Remote locations: Nome, AK; Hazard, KY; Tunica, Mississippi; Waterloo, IA; Tierra Amarilla, NM; Kermit, TX

The firm’s nearly 200 lawyers primarily defend manufacturers of motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, consumer products and industrial equipment and materials in product liability, consumer warranty and other liability matters nationwide. The firm’s commitment to the continual development and steady stable of first chair trial lawyers is evidenced by their investment in more than 11 custom Trial Skills Colleges for the firm’s attorneys.

Bowman and Brooke Announces New DE&I Leadership

Mon, 14 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke is pleased to announce new appointments to the Firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee. Partner Jacquelyn Ager has been elected Chair and Partner Paula Meyer has been elected Co-Chair. Both bring dedication, vision and a strong commitment to supporting and growing the Firm’s DE&I initiatives. Jacquelyn shares, “I look forward to implementing inventive policies that help our attorneys and employees rise together.

The Executive Committee has also appointed Partners Angela Angotti, Carissa Casolari and Eric Olson as at-large members of the committee. We look forward to their contributions and continued commitment to strengthening an inclusive and equitable environment across the firm.

Governor Gavin Newsom Appoints Mike Madokoro to the Los Angeles County Superior Court

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke is proud to share that Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed Mike Madokoro to serve as a judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. His investiture will take place on Tuesday, April 15 at 4:15 PM Pacific Time at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

During his time at Bowman and Brooke, Mike built an impactful legal career marked by leadership, dedication and service. A highly sought-after product liability attorney with more than 30 years of experience, he defended some of the world’s largest manufacturers in complex litigation. He also held key leadership roles as Managing Partner, Co-Managing Partner and Chair of the firm’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Committee. Mike has been passionate and committed to advancing the legal profession, mentoring the next generation of attorneys and creating a more inclusive legal community.

While we will miss Mike’s leadership and presence, we are honored to have been part of his journey. Please join us in congratulating him on this well-deserved appointment and wishing him continued success as he begins this new chapter as a judge. To read the official announcement, click here.

Sunny Rehsi Named an Up & Coming Attorney by Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke is proud to share that Sunny Rehsi, an Associate at Bowman and Brooke, is a 2025 Up & Coming Lawyer honoree recognized by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. This recognition honors attorneys in their first 10 years of practice who have distinguished themselves as standouts among their peers and emerging leaders in the legal profession.

Sunny is a standout honoree whose professionalism and reputation strengthen the legal profession. With nine years of experience as a Canadian and U.S. product liability attorney, he has built a strong record representing some of the largest automotive manufacturers in North America and serves as a valuable cross-border resource licensed in both the United States and Ontario, Canada.

His dedication to clients, colleagues and the community is evident in his results in complex litigation, as well as his ongoing mentorship and volunteer work, which continue to support the growth of the profession and meaningful community initiatives.

To see all of the 2025 Up & Coming Lawyers honorees, click here.

Three Bowman and Brooke Attorneys Join LCLD’s 2025 Fellow and Pathfinder Program

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke LLP is proud to announce that three attorneys, Eleni Swank, Ricardo Azcarraga and Taylor Silverberg, have been selected to participate in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD) 2025 Fellows and Pathfinders program.

Eleni, a partner in the firm’s Orange County office, focuses her practice on automotive product liability, technology platforms, catastrophic personal injury, mass tort and class action litigation. Ricardo, an associate in the Austin office, defends manufacturers in product liability, consumer warranty and general liability matters. Taylor, based in the Miami office, concentrates her practice on premises liability and product liability cases.

Eleni will represent the firm as its 2025 LCLD Fellow, while Ricardo and Taylor have been named Pathfinders.

The seven-month Pathfinder program brings together attorneys from LCLD Member organizations to strengthen their leadership foundation. Participants learn from experienced leaders in the legal field and career development professionals while building valuable relationships with peers. Designed for early-career attorneys from diverse backgrounds, the program provides essential leadership tools and networking opportunities to support long-term career growth.

Pathfinders are selected by the leaders at LCLD Member corporations and law firms, having been identified as early-career emerging leaders in their own right who have distinguished—or have the potential to distinguish—themselves within their organizations.

Congratulations to Ricardo, Taylor and Eleni on this accomplishment.

Law360 Features Bowman and Brooke’s Defense in Michigan SUV Fire Trial

Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke attorneys Tom Branigan, Executive Managing Partner; Nick Even, Partner; and Matin Fallahi, Associate, represented Mercedes-Benz in a Michigan trial involving a fatal SUV fire.

A Michigan state jury has sided with automaker Mercedes-Benz in a lawsuit over its GL450, one of which caught fire following a head-on collision, killing a mother and her 9-year-old daughter and leaving a son and father, a former University of Wisconsin basketball coach, with lifelong injuries. Following a nearly six-week trial, the Wayne County jury unanimously found Friday that the Mercedes SUV at issue was not defectively designed, counsel for the plaintiffs and Mercedes told Law360 on Monday.

To read more about the case click here.

Angela Angotti Receives 2025 Law360 Distinguished Legal Writing Award from the Burton Awards Program

Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 -0600

We are proud to celebrate Partner, Angela Angotti for being recognized as a 2025 Law360 Distinguished Legal Writing Award winner by the prestigious Burton Awards. Angela, alongside her co-author Michelle Fields, was honored for their article, "Nutraceuticals and Social Media: FDA and FTC Like and Subscribe to the Next Big Trend in Litigation." This recognition highlights Angela’s exceptional legal writing skills and deep understanding of emerging legal trends.

The Burton Awards, a national non-profit program associated with the Library of Congress, honors excellence in legal writing, reform, and public service. The winners were selected from nominations submitted by the nation’s top 1,000 law firms, with only 20 legal writers receiving this esteemed award. The selection was made by an Academic Board composed of leading legal scholars, including faculty from Harvard Law School, Georgetown Law Center and UC Berkeley School of Law.

Bowman and Brooke is honored to have Angela’s talent and dedication recognized on a national level. Please join us in celebrating her outstanding achievement! To read more and see what other authors are recognized, click here.

Bowman and Brooke Law Firm Surpasses 1,000th Trial Milestone

Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Tried cases in 48 states, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada.
Defended 183 different corporate clients.
Included more than 330 trial lawyers as members of its trial teams throughout its history.
Led trial teams in 388 different courthouses, including in the following state and federal courts:
- the largest U.S. cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas.
- Eight currently designated American Tort Reform Foundation “Judicial Hellholes:” Georgia, Philadelphia, Cook County, California, New York City, Louisiana, St. Louis and Lansing, MI.
- unique venues such as:
  - Portland, ME and Portland, OR
  - Charleston, SC and Charles Town, WV
  - International Falls, MN and Niagara Falls, NY
  - Vacation hot spots: Honolulu, HI; Miami, FL; St. Thomas, VI; Old San Juan, Puerto Rico
  - Remote locations: Nome, AK; Hazard, KY; Tunica, Mississippi; Waterloo, IA; Tierra Amarilla, NM; Kermit, TX

Announcing New Bowman and Brooke Firm Leadership

Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 -0600

We are proud to announce the election of Frank D. Hosley as Firm Chair. Additionally, Jodi M. Schebel has been elected Firm Vice Chair and Executive Managing Partner and Paul G. Cereghini will continue his firm leadership role as Firm Chair Emeritus.

“It’s an exciting time for the firm and the honor of a lifetime for me personally,” notes Hosley. “We are where we are today—poised and in position for continued success—thanks to a solid foundation laid by the leadership of many before of me."

“Our firm is defined by the exceptional dedication of our nearly 200 lawyers and 260 professionals across 17 offices, and I look forward to continuing our commitment to delivering ‘best in class’ legal defenses that our clients have come to expect nationally,” Hosley continued.

Cereghini notes, “Our firm began with a mission to defend clients where and when they need sophisticated trial counsel. It’s true today and will be tomorrow. With our firm having just reached our 40-year anniversary, I’m looking forward to working closely with Frank, Jodi and other firm leaders into our next chapter.” Cereghini will continue his firm leadership role as Firm Chair Emeritus on the firm’s Executive Committee. He previously served 10 years as Firm Chair beginning in 2015, as Vice Chair from 2014-2015, as a member of the firm’s Executive Committee since 2008 and as Managing Partner of the firm’s Phoenix office prior to 2008.

“I am thrilled to take on this leadership role and am fully dedicated to Bowman and Brooke’s continued reputation and success,” said Schebel. “Our firm has a rich history of delivering for our clients, day in and day out, as well as in their most critical moments and I am excited to carry that forward.”

As Firm Chair, Hosley will lead Bowman and Brooke’s six-person Executive Committee, the firm’s highest governing body responsible for guiding the firm’s strategic direction nationwide. Hosley, based in the Orlando office, was elected to the firm’s Executive Committee in 2021 and previously served as the Managing Partner in Orlando. He brings nearly 30 years of first-chair trial experience to this role having defended some of the world’s largest manufacturers in high-stakes cases. Schebel, based in the Detroit office, will continue her national responsibilities associated with the firm’s leadership and strategic planning. She was elected to the Executive Committee in 2024 and previously served as the Managing Partner of the firm’s Detroit office. With nearly 30 years of litigation and trial experience, Schebel serves as national discovery counsel for top global automotive manufacturers in product liability litigation.

Cereghini, based in the firm’s Phoenix office, has been with Bowman and Brooke since its founding 40 years ago and has played a key role in shaping the firm’s reputation as a national leader in high-stakes product liability litigation. With extensive first-chair trial experience, Cereghini will continue to provide strategic guidance and leadership as Firm Chair Emeritus and part of the Executive Committee.

This transition also recognizes the leadership and contributions of Mary R. Pawelek, who has served as Firm Vice Chair since 2019 and will continue to serve on the firm’s Executive Committee.

ACC South Carolina Focus Feature: Sharing Protective Orders

Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke Partner Rich McPherson and Of Counsel Abbie Golden's article, “Sharing Protective Orders,” was featured in ACC South Carolina's Focus newsletter. The article discusses the critical role of protective orders in litigation, ensuring a fair exchange of information while safeguarding corporate confidentiality.

Protective orders serve a crucial role in litigation, balancing the need for disclosure with the necessity of protecting sensitive commercial information. A strong protective order creates a framework that allows an appropriate exchange of documents while safeguarding commercially sensitive, confidential or proprietary information. One issue that is too frequently overlooked in negotiating a protective order is whether the protective order allows for sharing of documents outside of the case at issue. When protective orders allow the sharing of such documents outside of a case, they risk undermining the very purpose of these protections. To read the entire article, click here.

California Lemon Law Update: Key Changes Under AB 1755

Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0600

In recent years, the number of lemon law cases filed in California under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act has surged—from about 15,000 in 2022 to over 22,000 in 2023 and more than 25,000 in 2024—placing a strain on the court system and delaying case resolutions. To address these issues, Assembly Bill 1755 (“AB 1755”), enacted on September 29, 2024, aims to streamline the lemon law process. Effective in two phases—beginning on January 1 and April 1, 2025—AB 1755 introduces new procedural guidelines, including the early exchange of discovery documents, expedited depositions and mandatory mediation all within six months after the answer is filed for those manufacturers who elect to be governed by the new procedures more commonly known as the “opt-in” requirement.¹

Key Provisions of AB 1755

AB 1755 introduces key changes to California's Lemon Law, with provisions effective January 1, 2025, except for the pre-suit notice requirement, which becomes effective April 1, 2025.

1. Statute of Limitations (Section 871.21)

AB 1755 establishes a new statute of limitations for lemon law cases. A lawsuit must be filed within one year after the expiration of the applicable express warranty. However, the lawsuit cannot be filed more than six years after the vehicle’s original delivery date, unless tolling provisions apply.

For example, if a vehicle is purchased on January 1, 2020, with a 5-year warranty that expires on January 1, 2025, the consumer must file a lawsuit by January 1, 2026 (one year after the warranty expires). Even if the defect is discovered later, the lawsuit cannot be filed after January 1, 2026, as the 6-year limitation would apply. However, the statute of limitations may be tolled for the time the vehicle is out of service for repairs or for up to 60 days after a pre-suit notice is provided.

2. Pre-Suit Notice Requirement (Section 871.24)

AB 1755 emphasizes pre-litigation resolution, allowing consumers and manufacturers to resolve disputes without court intervention. Effective April 1, 2025, the consumer must provide written notice to the manufacturer at least 30 days before filing a lawsuit seeking civil penalties. The notice must include: (1) the consumer’s name, the Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”), a summary of the repair history and vehicle issues; and (2) a request for repurchase or replacement.

After receiving the notice, the manufacturer has 30 days to comply with the request, or they will face civil penalties. If the manufacturer chooses to proceed with replacement or restitution, it must be completed within 60 days after receiving the original notice.

3. Settlement Procedures (Section 871.25)

AB 1755 standardizes settlement procedures, particularly the terms and conditions of releases in lemon law cases. It includes a Standardized SBA Release form, clarifying the terms for replacement or restitution, with strict compliance timelines (e.g., restitution or replacement must be completed within 60 days of receiving notice). This form simplifies settlement and ensures both parties understand their obligations and deadlines. As discussed further below, there are penalties for noncompliance with this provision.

4. Initial Disclosure (Section 871.26)

If the dispute does not settle after the pre-suit notice requirements, and the consumer proceeds with litigation, AB 1755 streamlines the discovery process by requiring early disclosure of key documents. Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties must provide an initial disclosure and the documents specified in the statute—without awaiting a discovery request. Such documents include repair orders, warranties and pre-suit communications, among others.

5. Mandatory Mediation (Section 871.26)

AB 1755 includes a mandatory mediation process to encourage early dispute resolution. Within 90 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, the parties must schedule mediation. Mediation must occur within 150 days. Discovery is stayed (except for initial disclosure and depositions) until mediation is complete. If mediation does not resolve the case, normal discovery resumes.

6. Depositions (Section 871.26)

AB 1755 sets guidelines for depositions, ensuring focused and efficient discovery. Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties are entitled to conduct initial depositions of the plaintiff and defendant (or, if the defendant is not a natural person, the person most qualified to testify on their behalf). Each deposition is limited to two hours and the topics specified in the statute, including the vehicle history, repairs and communications with the manufacturer.

7. Sanctions for Noncompliance with Discovery Requirements (Section 871.26)

The court will impose sanctions on represented parties who fail to comply with certain discovery requirements, unless the party shows good cause. For noncompliance with document production or deposition requirements, the court will impose a $1,500 sanction on the plaintiff’s attorney or a $2,500 sanction on the defendant’s attorney.

Repeated noncompliance by the plaintiff will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice, with the plaintiff’s attorney liable for the manufacturer’s costs. Repeated noncompliance by the defendant will lead to evidentiary sanctions, preventing the introduction of certain evidence at trial. These sanctions ensure timely compliance and expedite case resolution.

8. Penalties for Noncompliance with Restitution or Replacement Process (Section 871.26)

If the manufacturer fails to complete restitution or replacement within 30 days of receiving the signed release, daily penalties of $50 will apply until the settlement is finalized, unless the parties agree otherwise. If the consumer fails to comply in good faith and delays the restitution or replacement, the manufacturer will not incur the daily $50 penalty. These penalties incentivize manufacturers to resolve cases quickly.

Impact on Manufacturers

AB 1755 introduces new obligations, including strict timelines for responding to pre-suit notices and completing replacements or restitution. While the structured process and standardized forms make compliance more predictable, the law may create new challenges. For example, plaintiffs’ attorneys may use the new timelines to strategically flood manufacturers with multiple claims filed on the same day. By holding back numerous claims and submitting them all at once, plaintiffs can overwhelm legal departments, increasing the risk of missed deadlines or failure to comply with the timelines. This could lead to civil penalties or pressure manufacturers into settlements. As the new procedures require quicker responses and faster resolutions, manufacturers must be more nimble in handling cases, dedicating additional resources to meet the new requirements and avoid costly mistakes. By understanding these potential tactics, manufacturers can better navigate the complexities of the new system and reduce the risk of penalties, delays and unnecessary settlements.

How Can We Help

As AB 1755 takes effect on January 1, 2025, manufacturers must be prepared to navigate these changes, assuming they opt into these new procedures under SB 26. Proactive compliance and understanding plaintiff strategies will be crucial to managing risks in this new legal landscape. Should you need assistance with navigating these new rules, please do not hesitate to contact us.

________________________________________

¹ SB 26 was introduced on December 2, 2024 and its current status is in progress. SB 26 would specify that the procedures described above would apply to the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle only if the manufacturer elects to be governed by those procedures by reporting the election to the Department of Consumer Affairs. The bill would require a manufacturer that wishes to make this election regarding its vehicles sold new in the year 2025 and all prior years within 30 days after the effective date of this bill. Thereafter, the bill would require a manufacturer that wishes to make this election to make an irrevocable election, as specified, regarding vehicles sold new during the five calendar years following the date of the election. The bill would require the Department of Consumer Affairs, by December 15 of each year, to publish to its website a list of the manufacturers that have elected to be governed by the procedures described above for a period that includes the following calendar year. If enacted, SB 26 would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Honda Summary Judgment Involving ADAS ‘Failure to Equip’ Claim

Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0600

On January 2, 2025, a New Jersey appellate court released a landmark decision in Richard T. Berkoski v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. holding that an otherwise safe vehicle could not be considered defective merely because it did not have certain driver-assistance technologies.

Plaintiff had appealed the trial court’s earlier summary judgment ruling in favor of Honda, in which the court agreed the manufacturer had no duty to equip a vehicle with every possible technology or to design a vehicle that was accident-proof. The absence of advanced driver assistance technologies simply does not render the vehicle defective because the ordinary consumer is well aware of the need to control her vehicle and of the potentially fatal consequences from not doing so.

In its published opinion, the court held that “the 2016 Honda CR-V was ‘reasonably safe’ as a matter of law.” It explained that “Plaintiff has made no showing that the 2016 Honda CR-V was unsafe because it did not have either or both the LDW and LKA systems. Those systems might have aided [the driver], but they did not replace the obvious expectation among consumers that a 2016 motor vehicle required steering.” Moreover, the court found “merit in a phased-in approach to new technologies and that the approach is consistent with the PL Act.”

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision and hope that it provides guidance to any other court that considers this important issue,” notes Honda’s lead counsel Paul Cereghini, Firm Chair of Bowman and Brooke LLP.

The case arose out of a fatal head-on crash that occurred when a 2016 Honda CR-V EX-L driver drifted into oncoming traffic at 50 mph and collided with a 2011 Ford Escape. The estate of the driver of the Ford Escape sued Honda alleging that the CR-V was defective because it lacked lane departure warning (“LDW”) and lane keeping assist system (“LKAS”) technologies.

The opinion “is an important precedent reaffirming critical product liability principles in the emerging area of ADAS technology litigation,” says Wendy Lumish, Executive Managing Partner, who argued before the appellate division.

Read the full opinion here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2887-22

Richard T. Berkoski, Individually and as Administrator Of The Estate Of Ann L. Ramage, Md, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd. And American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendants-Respondents, And Honda Of Turnersville, and John MacNamara, Administrator Of The Estate Of Elizabeth MacNamara

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-1463-20.

Announcing 2025 Partner and Senior Counsel Appointments

Wed, 01 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is pleased to announce the promotions of seven newly appointed attorneys to partner and five attorneys to senior counsel, effective January 1, 2025. These promotions reflect the firm's ongoing commitment to recognizing exceptional talent, dedication and leadership. The promoted attorneys have demonstrated their skills, delivered exceptional client service and contributed significantly to the firm's success.

New Partner Appointments:
Trevor Carolan (Dallas), Kirk Carter (Minneapolis), Courtney Kenisky (Dallas), Greg Mroz (Orlando) Eric Olson (Minneapolis), Daniel Rock (Miami) and Dorinda Varley (Miami).

New Senior Counsel Appointments:
Ben Anderson (Minneapolis), Colton Parks (Orange County), Prentice Schanz (Orlando), Gisselle Watkins (Miami) and Damion Young (Orange County).

Please join us in congratulating these outstanding individuals on their well-deserved promotions. Their hard work and dedication continue to elevate our clients, colleagues and firm.

Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Effective January 1, 2025

Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 -0600

As we approach the new year, important amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure will come into effect on January 1, 2025. These amendments, aimed at ensuring the fair and timely resolution of cases through effective case management, will impact how civil litigation is conducted in Florida.

Some notable changes:

A case does not need to be at issue before it is set for trial.
Parties must strictly comply with case management deadlines, which include an actual or projected trial period.
Trial continuances are disfavored and should be rarely granted.
The parties have a duty to confer before filing certain non-dispositive motions.
Parties must exchange initial discovery disclosures.
Parties have an ongoing duty to supplement initial discovery disclosures and responses.
Imposes Proportionality requirements with respect to the scope of discovery.
The deadline for responding to a motion for summary judgment is tied to the date of service of the motion.

Many changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure align closely with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These changes reflect a growing trend to harmonize state and federal procedures. Federal case law may offer valuable precedent as we navigate these changes.

For our clients, these amendments will have a significant impact on the ways in which cases are litigated. At Bowman and Brooke, we are committed to keeping our clients informed and prepared for these changes. For more information on the amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, click here.

Here is a summary of the key changes and how they might affect your case.

I. Case Management and Timelines

One of the most significant changes involves tightening the timeline for civil cases. Cases that previously took years to litigate will now be completed in 18-30 months, depending on the case track assignment.

Case Track Assignment: Rule 1.200 provides that each civil case must be assigned to one of three case management tracks (complex, general, or streamlined) within 120 days.

Case Management Orders: The court will issue a case management order no later than 120 days after commencement of the action that specifies the projected or actual trial period based on the case track assignment and expressly contains numerous enumerated pretrial deadlines.

Case Management Conferences: During a case management conference, the court may address all scheduling issues, but on reasonable notice to the parties and time permitting, the court may also elect to hear certain shorter, simpler pending motions.

Extending Case Management Order Deadlines: These deadlines will be strictly enforced unless changed by court order. The parties may submit an agreed order to extend a deadline if the extension does not affect the ability to comply with the remaining dates in the case management order. If extending an individual case management deadline may affect a subsequent deadline in the case management order, parties must seek an amendment of the case management order, rather than submitting a motion for extension of an individual deadline.

Modifications of Deadlines or Projected Trial Period: Any motion to extend a deadline, amend a case management order, or alter a projected trial period must specify:

the basis of the need for the extension, including when the basis became known to the movant;
whether the motion is opposed;
the specific date to which the movant is requesting the deadline or projected trial period be extended, and whether that date is agreed by all parties; and
the action and specific dates for the action that will enable the movant to meet the proposed new deadline or projected trial period, including, but not limited to, confirming the specific date any required participants such as third-party witnesses or experts are available.

Elimination of At-Issue Requirement: Rule 1.440 provides that cases are no longer required to be “at issue” before they are set for trial. The projected trial period based on case track assignment is as follows:

30 months for complex cases;
18 months for jury trial;
12 months for non-jury trial.

See Fla. R. of Gen. Prac. and Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B).

Trial Continuances: Rule 1.460 provides that motions to continue trial are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown. Failure to promptly request a continuance may be a basis for denying the motion to continue. Lack of due diligence in preparing for trial is not grounds to continue the case. If a continuance is granted based on the dilatory conduct of an attorney or named party, the court may impose sanctions on the attorney, the party, or both.

Impact on Clients: The new rules shorten the time lawsuits take in Florida and ensure the court’s time is being used efficiently. The emphasis on case management will require more careful planning from the outset of a case. Our attorneys are prepared to help clients navigate these changes to develop effective strategies.

II. Discovery and Conferral Requirements

The new discovery rules look to the discovery practices set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Florida now has an initial discovery disclosure requirement, an ongoing duty to supplement initial disclosures and discovery, and proportionality requirements.

We are prepared to work closely with our clients to ensure compliance with the new requirements by gathering relevant information and documents upon learning of a claim.

Initial Discovery Disclosures: Except as exempted by subdivision (a)(2) or as ordered by the court, Rule 1.280 requires a party to provide initial discovery disclosures to the other parties. These disclosures must be made within 60 days after service of the complaint or joinder (unless a different time is set by court order), and include:

the name, address, telephone number and email address of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses;
a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses;
a computation of damages; and
a copy of any insurance policy or agreements that may satisfy all or part of a judgment or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.

A party is not excused from making its initial discovery disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party’s initial discovery disclosures or because another party has not made its initial discovery disclosures. Generally, a party may not seek discovery from any source before that party’s initial disclosure obligations are satisfied.

Ongoing Duty to Supplement Initial Discovery Disclosures and Discovery Responses: A party who has made a disclosure or who has responded to a discovery request must supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a timely manner if it is material, incomplete, or incorrect and has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. Rule 1.380 details the sanctions available when a party fails to disclose or supplement an earlier response.

Proportionality: The scope of discovery now includes a proportionality requirement that is to be construed and applied in accordance with the federal proportionality standard. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality is assessed by considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Objecting with Specificity: Rules 1.340 and 1.350 now require the grounds for objecting to a discovery request to be stated “with specificity, including the reasons.” Under rule 1.350, an objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.

Conferral Requirements: Rule 1.202 provides that, before filing a non-dispositive motion, the movant must confer with the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion. The requirements of this rule do not apply when the movant or the nonmovant is unrepresented. Conferral is not required prior to filing certain motions, including but not limited to, motions: for default; for judgment on the pleadings; for summary judgment; to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted; to involuntarily dismiss an action; to dismiss for failure to prosecute; and for directed verdict and motions filed under rule 1.530. Failure to comply with the rule’s conferral requirements and purposeful evasion of conferral communication may result in sanctions.

III. Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment: Rule 1.510 requires summary judgment motions to be filed and served in accordance with any court ordered deadlines. The nonmovant must serve a response no later than 40 days after service of the motion for summary judgment. Any hearing on a motion for summary judgment must be set for a date at least 10 days after the deadline for serving a response, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders otherwise.

IV. How We Can Help

At Bowman and Brooke, we are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the new rules and our team is prepared to help you navigate these challenges seamlessly. We are ready to assist with updating litigation strategies and ensuring that your cases are resolved in an efficient and cost-effective manner. If you have any questions about how the new Florida Rules of Civil Procedure may impact your cases, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Bowman and Brooke Recognized in 2025 Edition of “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers

Fri, 08 Nov 2024 00:00:00 -0600

Bowman and Brooke is honored to receive recognition in the 2025 edition of "Best Law Firms in the United States” by Best Lawyers. Several distinguished attorneys have been named to specific categorical lists acknowledging their performance.

Firms included in the 2025 Edition of “Best Law Firms in the United States” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise. Rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in the field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. The firm was ranked in the following metropolitan areas and categories:

Metropolitan Tier 1
- Columbia, SC
  - Bet-the-Company Litigation
  - Commercial Litigation
  - Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- Phoenix, AZ
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- San Jose, CA
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- Troy, MI
  - Commercial Litigation

Metropolitan Tier 2
- Austin, TX
  - Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
- Minneapolis, MN
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- Troy, MI
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
- New Jersey
  - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Metropolitan Tier 3
- Columbia, SC
  - Mediation
- Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
  - Litigation – Intellectual Property
  - Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Named recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. The process is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.

Supreme Court of California Confirms that “New” Does not Mean “Used” for Purposes of the Song-Beverly Act

Thu, 31 Oct 2024 00:00:00 -0500

After two years of briefing, the Supreme Court of California released its opinion in Rodriguez v. FCA, US LLC. And in this Halloween-Day opinion, there were no tricks—just confirmation of what automakers and other warrantors have been arguing for years: “new” does not mean “used.”

Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, buyers of new motor vehicles are entitled to specific remedies if a manufacturer is unable to repair a new motor vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts. The statute provides that the remedy is available only as to a “new motor vehicle.” And it defines a “new motor vehicle” as one “bought or used primarily for personal purposes” as well as dealer-owned vehicles and demonstrators “sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(2).

Nearly thirty years ago, the California Court of Appeal concluded that this meant that “cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty” qualified as “new motor vehicles” under Song-Beverly. Jensen v. BMW of N. Amer., Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 123 (1995). This interpretation led to a groundswell of cases seeking relief under Song-Beverly for used vehicles that remained under warranty.

In 2018, the Rodriguez plaintiffs sued FCA seeking remedies under the Song-Beverly Act for a vehicle that they bought used, but which still had a portion of the five-year/100,000-mile warranty remaining. FCA moved for summary judgment, arguing that this was not a “new motor vehicle” within the meaning of the statute. The trial court granted the motion and in 2022, the Court of Appeal affirmed. In doing so, it cast doubt on the Jensen court’s interpretation of “new motor vehicles.”

The Supreme Court of California granted review without depublishing Rodriguez. The case attracted significant attention, including fourteen amici filing briefs. Adding to the tense environment, in May 2024, another district of the Court of Appeal decided Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 101 Cal.App.5th 913 (2024) (review granted), disagreeing with the Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rodriguez and relying on Jensen.

Today, the Supreme Court affirmed Rodriguez in an unanimous opinion. It agreed that if the Legislature had intended for the phrase “new motor vehicle” to include any car sold with a portion of the warranty remaining, it would have done so clearly. It buttressed this conclusion by pointing out that the specific exception for dealer-owned and demonstrator vehicles should be narrowly construed. It also discussed Song-Beverly’s statutory framework and legislative history, both of which support distinguishing between a new vehicle and a used one still under warranty. The Court also specifically disapproved of Jensen’s broad language.

Rodriguez is sure to be an important tool in stemming the California warranty crisis, eliminating hundreds—if not thousands—from the California court system.

Minnesota Lawyer Feature Part 3 of 3 – Understanding the Supreme Court’s Latest Decisions on the Federal Arbitration Act

Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke attorneys C.J. Schoenwetter and Eric Olson co-authored an article in Minnesota Lawyer, Understanding the Supreme Court’s Latest Decisions on the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) reflects the principle that contracting parties can choose to select the nature of dispute resolution of conflicts under the contract—including not only for substantive issues, but also for whether an arbitrator or a court can determine threshold issues. This third article of three wraps up our review of three FAA-related Supreme Court decisions issued between April 12 and March 23, 2024 interpreting the FAA.

This final article discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024)—which sought to resolve a three-way circuit split between the First, Second, and Eleventh Circuits—expanding the scope of the FAA’s transportation exemption to cover employees that do not work in the transportation industry. Bisonnette represents yet another decision by the Supreme Court that arguably narrows the scope of the FAA in favor of judicial proceedings.

To read the entire article, click here.

Bowman and Brooke Attorneys Featured in IADC Defense Counsel Journal

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 -0500

Robert Brundage, Partner and Kimberley Parrish, Associate co-authored, "Article III Standing to Appeal in Federal Court: What Business Lawyers Need to Know," which was published in the International Association of Defense Counsel's Defense Counsel Journal.

Federal-court practitioners will likely have heard of the “irreducible minimum” of standing, which Article III of the United States Constitution requires of every plaintiff on every claim: the party invoking the court’s jurisdiction must have an actual or imminent, personalized, concrete injury; the injury must be traceable to the conduct complained of in the lawsuit; and there must be a reasonable probability that a favorable court ruling would redress the injury. Lack of Article III standing is a silver bullet: it is jurisdictional, it cannot be waived, the court must notice a standing defect even if no party raises it, and the appellant’s lack of standing requires dismissal.

Less well known is that an appellant in federal court – whether plaintiff or defendant – must separately have standing to appeal. Standing can present a fatal obstacle to appeals of interest to business lawyers, including class-action settlements, bankruptcies, challenges to government action, cases involving intervenors, and even occasionally appeals from jury verdicts. Understanding appellate-standing requirements can help you stop an adversary’s appeal cold and can keep you from spending time and money on your own client’s appeal that cannot succeed. This article examines the obscure-but-useful area of standing to appeal, highlighting recurring scenarios where parties do or don’t have standing and the considerations at play.

To read the entire article click here.

LMG Life Sciences Recognizes Bowman and Brooke

Tue, 08 Oct 2024 00:00:00 -0500

We are proud to share that Bowman and Brooke has been recognized as a "Tier 3 Firm" and three of the firm’s attorneys, Executive Managing Partner Kim Schmid, Managing Partner Alan Vickery and Partner Randy Christian have been named 2024 "Leading Life Sciences Lawyers" by LMG Life Sciences, a guide to leading firms and attorneys in life sciences. Randy was listed in the product liability category for the 11th time; this is the fourth year for both Kim and Alan. As we previously announced, Randy was also shortlisted for Product Liability Attorney of the Year.

The firm and attorney rankings cover the United States and Canada, highlighting the most recommended groups for financial & corporate, intellectual property, litigation & enforcement and regulatory matters. The rankings are the result of the annual LMG Life Sciences research period, which encompasses firm participation in the form of questionnaires, partner interviews to gather market feedback, client surveys and independent research. LMG Life Sciences has conducted research and published rankings since 2012.

Congratulations to Randy, Kim and Alan on this outstanding recognition. Their achievements reflect Bowman and Brooke’s dedication to excellence in life sciences law. To see other firms and attorneys recognized for their contributions to the industry, click here.

Bowman and Brooke Recognized by LCLD as a 2024 Compass Award Winner

Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 -0500

Bowman and Brooke has been named a Compass Award winner by the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD), which recognizes law firms and corporations that show a strong commitment to building a more inclusive legal profession.

LCLD is composed of more than 400 corporate chief legal officers and law firm managing partners—the leaders of the profession—who are committed to ensuring that all talent thrives, with the ultimate goal of building a more equitable and diverse legal profession.

The Compass Award recognizes those individuals and organizations that fulfill all of the following requirements in a single calendar year:
• Member (Managing Partner/General Counsel) engagement with LCLD;
• Nominate an LCLD Fellow;
• Nominate an LCLD Pathfinder;
• Participate in an LCLD pipeline program (the 1L Scholars Program or the Success in Law School Mentoring Program).

Associates Sunny Rehsi and Matin Fallahi have been selected for LCLD’s Fellow and Pathfinder programs. Sunny will serve as the firm's LCLD Fellow and Matin as a Pathfinder for 2024.

Click here to read more about LCLD’s awards and view the full list of winners.