Bowman and Brooke Logo


While our firm is best known for defending automobile manufacturers, our lawyers counsel an array of Global 500 clients in high-stakes, national litigation in a range of industries.

Commercial Litigation

form with a sign and date sticker attached

Litigation is not a desirable situation for any business. It seems even the smallest of matters can snowball into expensive and nasty battles. Litigation can misdirect your attention from business goals and siphon dollars directly away from your bottom line. In today’s business world, however, litigation is sometimes unavoidable, and you need an experienced litigation team on your side.

We advise clients on the regulatory and legal risks of their business methods and operations and counsel them about the impact of proposed future regulations. We identify business practices that may give rise to future lawsuits or regulatory actions and counsel clients on how to eliminate or minimize that risk and how to best position themselves to defend against such claims should they arise. We have the skills to argue your case in the courtroom or resolve it at the bargaining table, but our goal is to keep you out of court by helping you identify and proactively respond to potential problems before they become lawsuits or regulatory actions.

Recognized nationally by our clients, we act as a first-class legal resource in helping resolve disputes against your business and avoiding or discouraging future claims, letting you get back to business as quickly as possible. Whether your business is a closely held entity or an international conglomerate, each client and each matter is highly valued, treated with respect and handled in a manner to preserve your business image and advance your business goals.

  • Jun 22, 2016
    Los Angeles, CA
    In a California lemon law trial involving allegations that a 2015 Hyundai Genesis wasn't properly diagnosed and repaired under warranty, Hyundai Motor America received a defense verdict from a downtown Los Angeles jury on Wednesday, June 22, 2016. The case is titled Steven Keefer and Patricia Ann Nelson Keefer v. Hyundai Motor America, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC580805. The defense verdict came after 7 days of jury trial and 2 hours of deliberations. The jury voted 10-2 that there was no substantially impairing defect and 12-0 that there was no breach of implied warranty.
  • Apr 17, 2014
    First Judicial District, Minnesota
    The plaintiff asserted claims seeking in excess of $4.2 million for negligence, conversion, forcible eviction and waste in connection with repairs made to their property after a fire. Upon cross-examination at the plaintiff’s deposition, the claim for conversion was voluntarily dismissed. Shortly after the plaintiff’s deposition, the forcible eviction claim was also voluntarily dismissed. As a result of a summary judgment motion, the court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice based on the applicable statute of limitations, intervening and superseding causes, and spoliation.
  • Mar 13, 2013
    Minneapolis, MN
    In the Bayside Holdings, Ltd. v. Viracon, Inc., case, Bayside installed hurricane-resistant windows manufactured by our client Viracon. Shortly after installation of the windows, Bayside alleged cracking and delamination occurred in some of the windows. Nine years after it noticed the alleged defects, Bayside filed suit against Viracon alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and negligence.
  • Jun 25, 2012
    Hennepin County, Minnesota
    Bowman and Brooke was retained to represent Axiom Solutions after judgment had been entered against it and the trial court denied a motion to compel arbitration. At the appellate level, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that although Axiom had breached a Settlement Agreement that did not contain arbitration provisions, the dispute against Axiom Solutions must nonetheless be sent to arbitration because the underlying money the opposing party sought to collect was based on a contract that did contain arbitration provisions.
  • May 02, 2012
    Hennepin County, Minnesota
    At its heart, the lawsuit against Beal Bank challenged the effectiveness of the transfer of assets Beal had purchased from the FDIC acting as a receiver for a failed bank. Filed in October 2011, the matter alleged fraud in a multimillion dollar real estate participation financing agreement.
  • May 30, 2024
    Legal Alert
    Bowman and Brooke attorneys C.J. Schoenwetter and Eric Olson co-authored an article in Law360 discussing the four arbitration takeaways from the High Court's Coinbase ruling. On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Coinbase Inc. v. Suski, providing clarity to parties faced with successive contracts containing conflicting dispute resolution provisions.
  • April 16, 2024
    Legal Alert

    On April 12, 2024, in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a transportation worker need not work for a company in the transportation industry to fall within the exemption from arbitration located in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). As a result, companies that manufacture or sell products—but also employ workers to package, load or transport products—may find arbitration agreements with those employees unenforceable as those employees may be exempt from arbitration under the FAA’s Residual Clause. 

  • August 17, 2023
  • June 2, 2023
    Bowman and Brooke has again been recognized by Chambers USA as an “Elite” firm in the Nationwide Product Liability & Mass Tort category. The publication notes, "They are widely regarded as the most prominent automotive defense group in the country. They represent every manufacturer and are great trial lawyers." The firm is ranked in Band 3 in the category.

Integrated Services

In addition to providing stellar legal counsel, we integrate our provision of other key services with the work of our legal teams. The result? Highly effective and efficient client service.