Plaintiff made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits to his insurance company after he was allegedly backed into by a valet parking a vehicle at a local mall.  The plaintiff alleged that the owner of the vehicle was unknown and the valet driver was uninsured at the time of the accident and thus, he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits through his automobile liability insurance carrier.  Plaintiff sued his insurance carrier for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices.  Mr. Reisinger obtained a defense verdict with regard to all three causes of action on behalf of his client’s insurance company.

Plaintiff alleged that the accident caused an injury to his shoulder, which required surgery and he requested $108,922.37 in Brandt fees.  The plaintiff’s request for Brandt fees was also denied.

Plaintiff, a 56-year-old singer in her church choir, received dental treatment by defendant in September of 2003 consisting of root canal therapy and modifications to an existing bridge. The existing bridge was unsuccessfully adjusted on three or four occasions necessitating the placement of a new bridge. The new bridge was placed in the lower left quadrant on January 15, 2004. Plaintiff alleges the dentist incorrectly seated the bridge and made improper adjustments throughout all four quadrants of her mouth.

Plaintiff was seen by seven subsequent treating dentists. Several of those dentists formulated extensive treatment plans. Plaintiff's retained expert testified she needed a full mouth reconstruction at a cost of $65,000.

Defendant contended he explained all of the treatment options to plaintiff before she attempted to save the wisdom tooth with a root canal. Defendant contended his adjustments were appropriate and the final bridge he placed in that area did not alter plaintiff's bite.

Plaintiff demanded $200,000 in settlement, which was later reduced to $100,000 during trial. Defendant offered $25,000 prior to trial. No further offers were extended by defendant after plaintiff rejected the $25,000 offer. After a week-long trial, the jury deliberated for three hours before returning a verdict in defendant's favor.

Mr. Reisinger was asked to step in and try this rear-end automobile accident case which had been handled previously by another defense firm. The original defense firm served a C.C.P. Section 998 Offer to Compromise on Plaintiff for the policy limit of $15,000. Plaintiff, a 60 year old vice president of a major retail corporation, rejected the offer to compromise and argued that Mr. Reisinger's client was 100% liable for the rear-end accident, and that she injured both her neck and low back in the incident. Further, the Plaintiff's orthopedic treating doctor testified at trial that the Plaintiff suffered a disc protrusion at L4-5 due to the accident and that she will have pain in her low back for the rest of her life. By the time trial commenced the Plaintiff had undergone three epidural injections in her low back and her medical expenses totaled over $25,000.

Mr. Reisinger argued that the vehicle that turned in front of Plaintiff forcing her to stop abruptly, was partially at fault for the accident and the jury agreed and found 10% liability on that unknown party. With regard to damages, Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award all of the Plaintiff's medical specials which were approximately $25,000 and award her approximately $500,000 for pain and suffering since she would continue to have low back pain for the rest of her life according to her orthopedic surgeon. Mr. Reisinger asked the jury to award the Plaintiff only the medical expenses associated with her neck treatment for three months following the accident as well as only three months of pain and suffering. As a result, Mr. Reisinger asked the jury to award the Plaintiff a total of $6,850.

After deliberating for several hours, the jury awarded the Plaintiff a grand total of $6,850 as requested by defense counsel. Mr. Reisinger has now filed a Cost Memorandum on behalf of his client in the amount of $31,845 due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not accept the C.C.P. Section 998 Offer to Compromise and therefore, this case will result in a net award to his client of $24,995.

After trial, the jury confirmed their 12-0 verdict in this matter by indicating that they did not believe that the Plaintiff injured her low back in this rear-end accident.

Plaintiffs sued their homeowner insurance carrier over the handling of a water damage claim that ultimately developed into mold. Plaintiffs contended that defendant insurance company was slow to investigate the extent of the water damage and hired an inferior contractor to dry down the home which resulted in mold. Plaintiffs further contended that once the mold developed, the insurance company was slow to respond to investigate the mold and that the plaintiffs had to hire their own hygienist who verified the existence of the mold. Plaintiffs further contended that following mold remediation, the defendant insurance company undervalued the cost of restoration of the home and failed to adequately compensate the plaintiffs for loss of use expenses and storage of the contents. Defendants claimed that they acted appropriately and promptly at all times. Once mold was discovered by the plaintiffs' hygienist the insurance company stepped up and fully covered all damages including mold remediation, additional living expenses and storage of contents. Further, the insurance company accurately evaluated the