CREDITOR RIGHTS AND COLLECTIONS, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION, SUBROGATION
PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH
Flat v. CMB Foods: $2,000,000 verdict. The deceased was a construction worker who was working along the edge of U.S. Highway I-85, Montgomery County, Alabama. The plaintiff was struck by an on-coming vechicle. Defendants contended, and had an eye-witness, who testified plaintiff was standing in the middle of the highway at the time he was struck. The accident occurred approximately at 9:00 a.m. and visibility was clear. Plaintiffs demonstrated that the eye-witness was some distance from them impact and was, in fact, in a curve which would give an inaccurate view to the witness. From a distance, considering the curve, it may appear to a witness the plaintiff was in the roadway.
Plaintiff's testimony demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the jury, that plaintiff was actually standing on the shoulder of the highway next to a vehicle. Forensic evidence demonstrated that the right rear view mirror of the offendin truck, in fact, struck and left an imprint on the left side of plaintiff's face. The rear view mirror also struck the left rear view mirror of the truck parked on the shoulder of the road. The indentured marks on both rear view mirros was sufficient to satisfy the jury that the plaintiff was standing on the should of the road at the time he was struck by the defendant's vehicle.
The case was tried to a verdict and the jury awarded $2,000,000 to the plaintiff. CMB Foods, defendant, only had $1,000,000 insurance coverage. Efforts had been made to settle within the policy limits of CMB Foods insurance policy. The offer was declined and a claim was paid by plaintiff against the insurance company for the $1,000,000 excess verdict. The case was settled with the insurance company for CMB Foods paying the full $2,000,000 verdict.
Williams v. Wigfall, Tenneco: $387,000 verdict. Plaintiff was injured while making a repair to his radiator hose on the premises of a Tenneco filling station. Plaintiff suffered a partial loss of his leg, when the leg was crushed between two motor vehicles. Plaintiff contended the premises of Tenneco was unsafe because the marking for parked cars was inadequate. Plaintiff contended that Tenneco should have known vehicles would park near a concession stand for the purpose of obtainin food items and this would create a dangerous situation to other vehicles on the premises. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $387,000.
McBee v. Brunos: $600,000.00 jury verdict. ($200,000.00 compensatory damages and $400,000.00 punitive damages.) Plaintiff slipped in Bruno’s supermarket. The floor was being waxed and cleaned and Plaintiff contended no markers were in place to alert customers of danger. Plaintiff suffered a broken wrist. Plaintiff presented evidence of a similar fall within 30 days and contended Bruno’s was guilty of wanton conduct. Jury verdict was returned in the amount of $200,000.00 compensatory damages and $400,000.00 punitive damages.
Rucker v. Service Master: In this case, water was on the floor of a hospital without adequate warnings. The plaintiff slipped on the water, fell and was seriously injured. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $500,000.00. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery County, Alabama. The verdict was upheld on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Davis v. National Car Rental: This was a claim for workers compensation. The court awarded permanent and total disability. The employee had a part-time job which the court determined was uncertain and did not represent the ability of the Plaintiff to earn compensation in the future. The court accepted Plaintiff’s position that the part-time job was of a protective nature and given to Plaintiff because of the friendship with employer and was not certain enough to establish a true earning capacity for the Plaintiff. The case was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, 628 So. 2d 722.
Sampley v. Integrity Insurance Company: This case involved a claim by Sampley Integrity Insurance Company owed him a defense in an automobile accident. Integrity paid their limits into court and declined to further defend. Supreme Court of Alabama entered an opinion determining that an insurance company has two obligations, i.e., one to defend the action and the other to pay judgment, if coverage provided for payment. Alabama Supreme Court, 476 So. 2d 79
Azar & Azar represented eight plaintiffs in a series of fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy lawsuits. The cases were based upon a scheme by the defendants to induce the plaintiffs to purchase pay telephones which were to be set up in certain locations. This was supposed to result in a large return of revenue on plaintiffs investments. It was developed at trial that the whole program was a fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (Montgomery, Alabama) and the jury returned separate verdicts for each of the eight plaintiffs in the amount of $3,500,000.00 punitive damages in each case. The jury returned various amounts of compensatory damages for each plaintiff.
Tunnell v. Key-Way, et al. , $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,000.00 compensatory damages. Coldiron v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $3,300.00 compensatory damages. Talley v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,500.00 compensatory damages. Johnson v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $4,000.00 compensatory damages. Grubb v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $4,600.00 compensatory damages. Landa v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $2,500.00 compensatory damages. Mann v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $3,600.00 compensatory damages. Kines v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,500.00 compensatory damages.
DeBardelaben v. DeBardelaben: This was a claim for libel and slander against the ex-wife and her father. The verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $140,000.00. The case was upheld on appeal and the verdict was paid in full including interest. This is one of the largest libel and slander verdicts in Montgomery County, Alabama.
Nolen v. NeSmith: This was a claim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff contended that she had been falsely accused of misappropriating money. The matter was investigated by the City police and presented to the grand jury. A no bill was returned and suit was filed by Plaintiff. Case was settled in the middle of trial against some of the defendants on a pro tanto basis upon payment of $300,000.00.
Azar & Azar has handled substantial municipal annexations of land on behalf of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. The firm is presently handling municipal annexations for the City of Wetumpka, Alabama. Azar & Azar defended the court challenge to the major annexation of 4600 acres of land in the eastern border of the City of Montgomery. This annexation was challenged in court and resulted in extensive litigation before the annexation obtained final approval. The firm handled pre-clearance with the United States Justice Department in Washington D.C. of the annexed property involving the redistricting of the area annexed and the establishment of voting precincts. The firm was successful in obtaining clearance by the United States Justice Department of this substantial annexation for the City of Montgomery, and pre-clearance of new voting precincts.
MUNICIPAL/CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE
Hancock v. City of Montgomery: $5,000,000.00 Automobile accident successfully defended. Plaintiff contended City of Montgomery police officers, who were on a high-speed run to back up another officer, did not have lights and sirens on at the time of collision which injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff had severe injuries, including a partial loss of a leg. In the trial of this case, after voir dire of Plaintiff's expert, George Kirkham, his testimony was disallowed and he was not permitted to testify as an expert in this case. Jury returned a verdict in favor of the City of Montgomery , and was affirmed on appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, 428 So. 2d 29.
_ Cottrell v. Caldwell: This was a civil rights action brought on behalf of the deceased. The deceased had been arrested by police officers. He was placed in the back of the police car for transportation to jail. He died from positional asphyxiation and suit was filed against the City of Montgomery and the police officers. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the defendants on qualified immunity and the Plaintiff did not pursue the matter further. Case reported, 85 Feb 3rd 1480, 11th Cir. 1996.
_ Brook v. City of Montgomery: This was a claim of age discrimination. Plaintiff contended employees for the City of Montgomery had made comments concerning age and denied Plaintiff a promotion. The verdict was returned in favor of the City of Montgomery. 916. F.Supp. 1193.
Thornton v. City of Montgomery: A jail inmate died by asphyxiation when swallowing a plastic spoon. Claim was made by Plaintiff that the City of Montgomery was guilty of deliberate indifference to the needs of the inmate and had not provided proper training to its personnel. Summary judgment on the merits of the case was entered in favor of the City of Montgomery. (78 F.Supp 2d 1218). This case was affirmed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, without opinion
The firm has closed thousands of real estate transactions, including various types of commercial real estate transactions as well as residential loans and refinancing.The firm has been involved in a variety of commercial transactions including sale and purchases of motels; commercial buildings; subdivision development; real estate contracts pertaining to construction, financing, and developing commercial buildings.
Azar & Azar, L.L.C., is recognized as one of the premier real estate firms. We have represented various title insurance companies in the writing and providing title insurance. The firm is presently an agent for the writing of title insurance with First American Title Insurance Company.
The firm has been involved in and has litigated adverse possession claims and a substantial amount of litigation involving eminent domain or condemnation of property for road way construction. The firm handled the eminent domain/condemnation of the right of way for Interstate I-85 through a major portion of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. The firm is presently handling substantial eminent domain/condemnation cases for the State of Alabama in obtaining the right of way for the construction of the outer loop presently under construction in the eastern portion of the City of Montgomery.
Copyright 2005 - 2013 Azar & Azar L.L.C. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. (Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct rule 7.2(e)(1997))