How DT produced a multi-million dollar recovery on a file many considered not even worthy of subrogation.
In 2007 a U.S. Marine (now discharged from the Marine Corps), was involved in live-fire training at the Twentynine Palms Base in California…
The ex-marine improperly removed an M-125 cluster flare from the base and took it to his parents’ house in Cudahy, Wisconsin.
Two years later, he and his brother negligently set off the flare. The burning clusters landed on the roof of a Smithfield meat processing plant, causing a massive fire.
The firm applied ingenuity, creativity, and open-mindedness as the subrogation team developed and implemented the theory of liability aimed at a recovery.
After much litigation, the United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, making (among other things) the unforeseeable criminal act argument.
DT countered with:
Ultimately, DT argued the criminal act (and its consequences) were indeed foreseeable.
The trial court agreed and denied the motion.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement regarding liability, which took into consideration a significant reduction for the two brothers that stole and actually set the flare off which caused the fire.
Our insurer clients would receive an agreed to percentage of whatever damages were found by the trial court. A damages only bench trial occurred in November of 2015, but unfortunately the trial judge passed away before issuing a decision.
The case was assigned to a new judge, who ruled on some preliminary damage motions that we thought were in contrast with the first judge’s view of the case. Therefore, we reached a settlement before the second trial on damages.
Our clients will receive $16 million (applying the aforementioned percentage to a base damage number of over $60 million) — on a file several market members did not think was even worthy of a look at subrogation.
