Representative Cases

Paul Sperry and Patrick Norris obtained a defense verdict for a large masonry contractor on January 27, 2012 in Charleston County, South Carolina. The masonry contractor was hired by the original general contractor ten years after original construction in an effort to address water intrusion concerns around windows. The plaintiff homeowner sought over $300,000 in damages for allegedly defective work related to original construction and the subsequent masonry repairs. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff as to negligence of the general contractor, but absolved the masonry contractor of any fault for the plaintiff's alleged damages.

Partners Lee Weatherly and Gary Lovell recently prevailed in the South Carolina Court of Appeals for a physician client in a case of first impression relating to South Carolina's pre-suit expert affidavit requirement under the 2005 Tort Reform Legislation. The Court of Appeals affirmed a York County trial court judge finding that the Notice of Intent Statute, and South Carolina Law, mandate the filing of a contemporaneous expert affidavit alleging one act of negligence when Plaintiff files a Notice of Intent to sue a medical professional. Plaintiff argued, in opposition, that the general provisions of the 2005 Tort Reform Legislation in South Carolina automatically grant a Plaintiff an additional 45 days to file an expert affidavit in the Notice of Intent phase of the litigation when he is within 10 days of the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals ruled that this argument was not persuasive and upheld the trial court's ruling, striking the Notice of Intent to File Suit from the record and ending the case. Contact Lee Weatherly at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com or Gary Lovell at glovell@carlockcopeland.com for more information. For a copy of the full published opinion see http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/4935.htm.

Partners Eric Frisch and Broderick Harrell obtained a defense verdict in Fulton County Superior Court in a wrongful death case. Plaintiffs alleged that an emergency physician failed to resuscitate a critically ill patient adequately and failed to insert a chest tube in the face of evidence of bleeding into the chest.

John Bunyan, John Rogers, and Joe Kingma represented a Tennessee accountant and his firm in two lawsuits arising out of a "business divorce." The plaintiffs alleged that the accountants were complicit in fraud and racketeering perpetrated by the CEO and claimed a loss of $125 million. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that all potential claims against the accountants had been released as part of two stock transfers. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's order.

Kent Stair, Paul Sperry, and Patrick Norris represented an architect in an action in Charleston County, South Carolina brought by the homeowner's association of a condominium complex. The court initially denied the architect's motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, holding that while the plaintiff was on notice of potential construction-related defects more than three years prior to filing the action, the plaintiff was not on notice of any design-related defects. However, following oral arguments on the architect's motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment, the court ultimately agreed with the architect's position that the statute of limitations is an objective, rather than subjective, concept. The court reversed its original decision and granted summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims against the architect by order dated January 4, 2012, holding that the plaintiff had an opportunity to investigate the defects when originally brought to its attention. The plaintiff's failure to ascertain the particular cause of the defects--construction, design, or otherwise--did not toll the running of the statute of limitations.

Jason Hammer represented an uninsured / underinsured motorist carrier in a bad faith action filed in Cobb County Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleged that although he entered into a settlement agreement with his insurer, the agreement was void due to coercion, fraud and duress and that his insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to pay additional benefits. The Court granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor, finding that the Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in perfecting service outside the statute of limitations and that even if service had been proper, Plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrines of release and/or accord and satisfaction.

Doug MacKelcan recently obtained summary judgment for a large Property Owners Association in Beaufort County, South Carolina. Plaintiffs alleged that the POA's Architectural Review Board improperly approved a construction project on a neighboring property and pled nuisance, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against the POA. After considerable discovery, the Court found that the POA was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the POA from the suit.

Jason Hammer represented an insurer in a declaratory judgment action in Fulton County Superior Court seeking a determination that there was no uninsured / underinsured motorist coverage exposure for the insurer. The insured argued her policy should have provided for added-on coverage, not reduced-by coverage, which she attempted to support with expert testimony. Jason successfully moved the court to exclude the insured's expert and the court subsequently granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor, finding that the policy provided for reduced-by coverage and therefore no UM exposure existed as a matter of law.

Joe Hoffman, Bill Jones, and Joe Kingma prevailed on a motion to dismiss granted in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County on November 29, 2011.

The case arose from a contract for the sale of 36.5 acres of raw land which was going to be converted to commercial. The sale fell through when a local municipality arguably changed the zoning rules and the developer sued the municipality as well as a local nonprofit. The developer claimed that the nonprofit employee, who was formerly the mayor of the municipality, had tortiously interfered with contractual relations and caused the loss of the sale. The developer prevailed against the municipality and obtained an advisory opinion for $1.8 million dollars.

Carlock Copeland defended the claims against the nonprofit, arguing that even if the speech was made, which was denied, it was privileged and protected by the Anti-SLAPP statute. The case was vigorously argued on motion, which was granted by the trial court on November 29, 2011.

The case has been appealed, so stay tuned for further developments.

Chris Meeks, Shannon Sprinkle, and Joe Kingma obtained a favorable Court of Appeals decision affirming summary judgment granted to their lawyer client.  Their client had been sued by an opposing party in a divorce case for claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conspiracy.  Plaintiff's claims were an effort to un-do a divorce decree, which he said resulted in an unfair distribution of marital assets.  The trial court had previously rejected all of Plaintiff’s claims against the lawyer as an improper collateral attack on the prior judgment and found that Plaintiff was barred by in pari delicto due to his own bad acts.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

This case may be appealed so stay tuned for further updates.

Mike Ethridge and Katie Sullivan recently prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice filed in state court on behalf of an architectural firm.  Plaintiff alleged that the architect defendant violated the standard of care, causing or contributing to his fall on a ramp outside a South Carolina library, and filed the affidavit of a safety consultant contemporaneously with the Complaint.  The South Carolina court granted Mike and Katie's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the basis that the safety consultant was not qualified to render an opinion on an architect's standard of care.

Tom Carlock and Eric Frisch successfully defended a general surgeon in a wrongful death claim in Bartow County Superior Court (Cartersville, Georgia). The patient was at the hospital for a small bowel obstruction. The surgeon ordered the placement of a nasogastric tube in the operating room. Because it was an "open" procedure, a laparotomy, the surgeon reached up and felt the nasogastric tube in the stomach. About 18 hours later, the patient became sick and, on investigation, it was discovered the patient had suffered a rupture of the esophagus from the nasogastric tube. The patient was then transferred to another hospital, but she died 10 days later at age 85. Plaintiffs alleged that the surgeon failed to confirm placement of the nasogastric tube in the operating room and failed to diagnose and treat the perforation in a timely manner. The jury returned a defense verdict in just over 3 hours.

Mike Ethridge and Katie Sullivan obtained a dismissal in a federal court action in which the plaintiff was seeking over $650,000 in actual damages for injuries sustained when he fell off a ladder at a construction site. Mike and Katie represented the subcontractor who allegedly installed the ladder in violation of applicable standards. They were able to secure a dismissal after establishing that the ladder was installed by someone other than their client.

Lindsey Hettinger, Michele Jones, and Joe Kingma represented two attorneys and their law firms, who were sued in connection with the administration of an estate.  The Northern District lawsuit was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on October 4, 2011.

Wade Copeland and Ashley Sexton successfully defended a dentist in the State Court of Fulton County. Plaintiff alleged that the dentist negligently performed a total mouth reconstruction that employed a bridge and crown reconstruction of the patient's mouth resulting in broken teeth, headaches, weight loss and exacerbation of other pre-existing conditions. The defense presented evidence that dentist had seated the reconstruction in temporary cement with the intention of adjusting the patient's bite and correcting any deficiencies before seating the reconstruction in permanent cement. However, the patient failed to return for the final seating of the reconstruction. Rather than having any further dental work done, he elected to file suit against the dentist. The defense presented expert testimony that the reconstruction was performed appropriately and that the patient's failure to allow the dentist to complete the work resulted in his damages. The jury returned a defense verdict after a short period of deliberation.

Brian Spitler, Michele Jones, and Joe Kingma won dismissal of claims against their attorney client in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs alleged that they lost their investments in a real estate company due to fraud. The plaintiff investors sued various defendants, including the attorney who performed corporate legal work for the company. The court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for securities fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, false certification of financial statements, and civil RICO against the attorney.

Lee Weatherly was successful in obtaining a directed verdict for his client, an urgent care physician, in a Charleston, South Carolina medical malpractice case. In this case, Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant urgent care physician was negligent in his diagnosis and recommended care of a large plural effusion in Plaintiff's left lung. Plaintiff contended that the physician neglected to correctly diagnose her condition and send her to an emergency room for proper care, leading to a two day delay in treatment. There was a factual dispute as to what care the Defendant physician actually recommended to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff was unable to bring forth any evidence that even if the Defendant physician was negligent, the two day delay in treatment caused her any damages. The Judge found that the Plaintiff's claim was deficient as a matter of law and ordered that it be dismissed with prejudice. For more information on the case, contact Lee at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com.

Kate Hughes successfully represented a real estate brokerage and its agents in a heavily litigated real estate claim brought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs signed a purchase contract to buy a luxury condo during its pre-construction phase.  Plaintiffs are the would be buyers in the transaction and defendant was Plaintiffs' buyer's agent.  However, the real estate market crashed and Plaintiffs ended up defaulting on their purchase, which forfeited their earnest money payments.  Plaintiffs claimed Defendant misrepresented several key facts about their condo purchase, which is why they claim to have defaulted on the purchase.  Plaintiffs alleged claims under the Interstate Land Sales Act, the Georgia Securities Act, Fair Business Practices Act, Fraud, as well as numerous other claims regarding the real estate transaction.  Kate was able to successfully negate each of the 12 counts in the complaint and obtain dismissal of all counts on summary judgment.

Wade Copeland and Ashley Sexton successfully defended an obstetrician-gynecologist in a case in the State Court of Cobb County. Plaintiff alleged that the doctor failed to successfully complete a dilation and curetage to remove products of conception following a miscarriage. Plaintiff contended that the doctor failed to inspect the tissue extracted during the procedure, failed to perform an ultrasound immediately following the procedure, and failed to immediately review the pathology report to insure that the fetus had been successfully extracted. The patient presented to the emergency department following the procedure. She had testified she was experiencing bleeding and severe cramping, but she failed to report this and only complained of a headache, for which she was prescribed medication and discharged home. The patient later delivered the fetus at home. The defense presented two expert witnesses, each of whom testified that the doctor had complied with the standard of care in performing the procedure and that the standard of care did not require that the doctor view the tissue extracted, perform a stat ultrasound or immedately review pathology results before discharging the patient following the dilation and curetage. The jury returned a defense verdict after a very short period of deliberation.

Gary Lovell and Doug MacKelcan obtained a defense verdict for a national auto parts store in a premises liability case after a two day trial in Charleston County, South Carolina.  In this case, Plaintiff fell as she was exiting the store and broke her finger, requiring emergency surgery and months of physical therapy.  Plaintiff claimed the store failed to remedy a dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff to fall; however, the jury determined that the store was not negligent in its maintenance and supervision of the premises and returned the defense verdict after approximately two hours of deliberation.

Shannon Sprinkle and John Bunyan won the dismissal of a federal action against a law firm that was retained to initiate foreclosure and dispossessory claims.  In dismissing the case, the Northern District of Georgia concluded that the plaintiff's allegations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations and wrongful foreclosure failed to show any plausible claim for relief.

Kate Hughes was able to obtain dismissal of Plaintiff's dental malpractice claims against her client under the "5 year rule".  Kate fully protected her client since her client's personal assets would have been at stake if this case had reached trial.

Michael Ruppersburg successfully defended a police officer in a high-profile criminal case.

The officer was working an off-duty job as a security guard at an apartment complex in a high-crime area. The officer saw a man leaving the apartment complex that he believed was acting suspicious and tried to stop and question him. Instead of stopping, the man got into his car and attempted to run from the officer. The man then reached under his seat and grabbed a black object that the officer thought was a gun. Believing his life was in danger, the officer fired one shot in self-defense. The black object that the officer thought was a gun was actually a cell phone. A grand jury indicted the officer on two counts of aggravated assault, aggravated battery and violation of oath of office. He faced a prison sentence of up to 20 years if convicted.

After an eight day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury found the officer not guilty on all counts.

Laura Paris obtained a stipulation of dismissal in a personal injury claim for a client. In the suit, Plaintiff alleged that our client's semi-truck crossed into his lane to pass several vehicles.  Plaintiff alleged that he was forced to drive his motorcycle off of the road to avoid a head-on collision and, as a result on the evasive maneuver, he injured his back and shoulder.  After several hours of questioning the Plaintiff as to his medical records, which predated the incident, Plaintiff's attorney recommended to his client that they dismiss the case.

John Bunyan, John Rogers, and Joe Kingma prevailed in the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed an order dismissing a multi-million dollar audit malpractice suit with no discovery. The case arose from the failure of a contractor that had provided most of the asphalt for Georgia DOT projects. The contractor's failure had led to a firestorm of litigation, including one verdict of $150 million. On July 14, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Carlock Copeland's win on behalf of a Georgia audit firm. The appellate court agreed that a construction bonding company's complaint must be dismissed for failing to specifically describe the mistakes the audit firm allegedly made. Carlock Copeland emphasized the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Iqbal and Twombly and argued that the plaintiff bonding company had failed to articulate a specific error. The win was reported in a Law360 article on July 15, 2011.

Michael Ruppersburg recently argued and won a case at the Georgia Supreme Court over whether Georgia should adopt a new legal duty for a hotel to check on a guest's welfare.

A 76 year old man was staying at a hotel on a business trip. According to his wife, one evening she was unable to reach her husband despite multiple phone calls to his room. The wife called the hotel front desk several times and told hotel employees that her husband was on medication, that she was very worried about him and made multiple requests for someone check on him. Hotel employees disputed receiving these phone calls. Around noon the next day, housekeepers found the man lying on the floor of his room in medical distress. Although the hotel immediately called for an ambulance, he died on the way to the hospital.

His wife sued the hotel for wrongful death. She claimed that, based on her telephone calls the night before, the hotel had a legal duty to check on her husband's welfare and summon medical aid if needed. Ruppersburg argued that this new legal duty conflicted with current Georgia premises liability law and that the hotel owed no legal duty to the man because it did not cause or contribute to his medical distress. In a 4-3 split decision, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed. The majority ruled that the hotel had no legal duty to check on the man's welfare and ruled in favor of Ruppersburg's client.

D. Gary Lovell, Jr. and Lee Weatherly obtained a defense verdict for a surgeon and his practice group, in a medical malpractice case filed in York County, South Carolina. In the trial, the Plaintiff claimed that the doctor failed to properly perform an open cholecystectomy (gall bladder removal) that had been converted from a laparoscopic procedure. Plaintiff's common bile duct was transected during the procedure necessitating two corrective surgeries to repair the injury. Nevertheless, the jury determined that the doctor met the standard of care and returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the physician after deliberating for approximately four hours.

On June 16, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against a lawyer/guardian ad litem. John Bunyan, Shannon Sprinkle, and Joe Kingma successfully argued that the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged facts supporting the claim that the guardian had conspired with state actors and others to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

Doug Smith and Kate Hughes won Summary Judgment and obtained dismissal of a highly contentious wrongful death case brought under the Family Purpose Doctrine after they proved there was no evidence of a common law marriage or other family relationship.

Lindsey Hettinger, Pete Werdesheim, and Joe Kingma obtained summary judgment in an abusive-litigation action brought against their clients in the Superior Court of DeKalb County.  Plaintiff contended that Carlock Copeland's attorney clients pursued frivolous defenses and counterclaims in an underlying lawsuit that stemmed from the breakup of a technology business, seeking nearly $1,000,000 in damages.  In an order entered June 10, 2011, just ten days before a specially set trial, Judge Linda Warren Hunter determined that no triable issue existed as to "malice," causation, or damages.

A prominent Atlanta law firm retained Tom Carlock and Pete Werdesheim about a fee dispute with a client. The firm had obtained a judgment worth over a half-million dollars for the client and successfully defended the award on appeal, all while working on a hourly basis.  The client owed the firm a substantial sum of money and hired a new attorney, who raised allegations of overbilling and ethical violations in connection with certain interest charges.  Tom and Pete were able to negotiate a resolution to the fee dispute without resort to litigation, and their client received over $250,000.00, nearly 100% of the principal amount owed.

David Overstreet and Mandi Dudgeon recently prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in state court on behalf of a local real estate attorney in South Carolina. Plaintiffs alleged that the lawyer failed to provide adequate advice with regard to the sales contract and real estate closing he conducted. The Court of Common Pleas granted the attorney's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to present necessary arguments on the standard of care or a supporting expert opinion.

Dan McGrew and Kim Ruder successfully defended a pathologist in a wrongful death action in Fulton County.  The case involved allegations that the pathologist misdiagnosed breast cancer in a 27 year old woman who presented to the hospital with a breast mass and underwent a mastotomy and drainage of what was believed to be a breast abscess.  The pathologist read the tissue slide as benign.  Two years later, the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer in a different location in the same breast.  Within a year from diagnosis, the patient died of breast cancer that had metastasized to her lungs.  She was 30 years old at the time of her death.  The case was tried over 4½ days.  McGrew and Ruder successfully argued that the breast cancer that was diagnosed two years after the pathologist reviewed the tissue slide was a new and different cancer.  Plaintiff sought damages in the nature of $5,000,000.  McGrew and Ruder successfully obtained a judgment in favor of their pathology client.

Pete Werdesheim, Billy Newcomb, and Joe Hoffman secured the dismissal of an adversary proceeding against their client in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Georgia.  In short summary, the plaintiffs contended that Carlock Copeland's client committed various acts of fraud and sought a determination that a state-court judgment against him would be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).  After a lengthy hearing in Albany, Judge James D. Walker, Jr. issued a memorandum opinion and order on May 29, 2011.  Judge Walker found that although "the facts of this case cry out for a remedy" in light of the "egregious" conduct allegedly committed by Carlock Copeland's client, the plaintiffs failed as a matter of law to show that the firm's client had engaged in fraud in a fiduciary capacity, as that term is defined in the Bankruptcy Code.

Carlock Copeland Attorney, Thomas A. Cox, Represents DeKalb County and Atlanta Public Schools in Landmark Case.

In a long-delayed and highly anticipated decision, the Georgia Supreme Court, siding with local Georgia public school systems including Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties and the City of Atlanta, has declared unconstitutional a Georgia law that had allowed the State to bypass local school boards and approve the creation of state charter schools funded by contributions from local school systems.

The Georgia Charter Commission Act, enacted by the General Assembly in 2008, authorized a politically appointed state commission to override decisions by local school boards denying applications to create charter schools. In striking down the Act, the Georgia Supreme Court's decision affirms the constitutional authority of local school boards to determine when and whether charter schools may operate within their districts.

Thomas A. Cox, who recently joined the law firm of Carlock Copeland & Stair, represented the DeKalb County and Atlanta school systems in the case before the Supreme Court. "The Georgia Constitution clearly specifies that local public education is to be under the management and control of local boards of education," said Cox. "By upholding this principle, the Georgia Supreme Court has put decisions regarding the creation of charter schools, and the expenditure of local tax funds, back in the hands of locally elected boards, and out of the hands of a group of political appointees who are not answerable to any voters."

The decision will have no impact on the large majority of Georgia’s charter schools, which have been approved by local school boards, but it may require the closure (or at least the loss of all local funding) of charter schools that have previously been approved by the State Charter Commission, including Ivy Preparatory Academy in Gwinnett County, Charter Conservatory for Liberal Arts and Technology in Bullock County, and Heron Bay Academy in Spaulding County, all of which were parties in the case.

In addition to Mr. Cox, the Charter Commission lawsuit also included former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers, now with the firm of Balch & Bingham, who represented the Gwinnett County School System; Attorney General Thurbert Baker representing the State defendants; and Bruce Brown of McKenna, Long & Aldridge representing the charter school defendants.

Carlock Copeland & Stair, a firm with more than 40 years of litigation experience, has established an Education Law practice. Mr. Cox leads the practice area that will focus on representation of public and private schools, school systems, and other educational institutions in significant litigation matters involving diverse issues, including student rights, education of students with disabilities, employment law, construction disputes, compliance with federal laws, open records and open meetings issues, charter schools and contract disputes.

Adam Appel and Kim Ruder defended a landscape company whose driver caused a three car rear-end accident. The landscape company admitted liability and the case was tried over 4 1/2 days. The Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a shoulder injury which led to a recommendation for surgery 23 months after the accident. Prior to surgery she had received ongoing medical attention from various doctors, including her Primary Care physician, an orthopedic surgeon and a Pain Management Doctor during which time she complained of pain in the periscapular area of her right shoulder. After 23 months of unresolved shoulder pain she went to see another orthopedic surgeon who diagnosed an impingement syndrome in her right shoulder. The treating doctor testified that her surgery was necessitated by the accident. She underwent surgery and claimed $29,000 in medical expenses. In defending the case, Appel and Ruder argued that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by following her doctor's directions to follow up on a more regular basis and that the Impingement Syndrome was a new and unrelated problem. Plaintiff asked the jury to award her between $267,000 and $355,000 for past medical expenses and pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict of $7,103. The case was settled pursuant to a high low agreement.

Jason Hammer successfully defended his client during a jury trial in Cobb County Superior Court. The Defendant admittedly ran a red light and collided with the Plaintiff, who presented evidence, including expert testimony, in an effort to show the Defendant was on her cell phone and that it caused her to run the light. The defense presented evidence that the Plaintiff was not paying attention either and despite having the right-of-way, could have avoided the accident. It was undisputed the Plaintiff suffered a broken arm and frozen shoulder, among other injuries, requiring a cast for a month, a dynamic splint for another month and over six months of physical therapy. She had a 7% permanent impairment rating and $12,000 in undisputed medical bills. The defense successfully attacked the Plaintiff's credibility with regard to her alleged pain, suffering and limitation of daily activities. The jury returned a verdict attributing 15% negligence to the Plaintiff and a damages award of $17,000, for a total award of only $14,450. Prior to trial, Plaintiff rejected a $30,000 offer and increased her demand from $125,000 to $155,000.

Brian Spitler and Joe Kingma obtained dismissal for their client, an accountant and a court appointed receiver, on claims brought by the principals of the company in receivership.  The motion to dismiss was based on the receiver's official immunity.  Following a hearing, Plaintiff voluntary dismissed the claims.

Trial victory for Tom Carlock and Eric Frisch, who successfully defended an anesthesiologist at trial. Plaintiffs alleged that the anesthesiologist and a physician assistant failed to adequately ventilate and oxygenate the patient after she developed respiratory distress, leading to purported brain damage. The Fulton County jury returned the defense verdict in about two hours.

On April 1, 2011, a Fulton County jury returned a defense verdict in favor of an OB/GYN physician who was represented by Dan McGrew and Spencer Bomar. The case involved a 39-year old female who was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy and who underwent surgical removal of a fallopian tube. Plaintiff alleged that the diagnosis, management, and surgical intervention of her ectopic pregnancy was untimely causing the permanent loss of a fallopian tube, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

Jason Hammer represented an international hotel corporation sued in Fulton County Superior Court after approximately half of the guests that attended a 2005 wedding reception at the hotel suffered from food poisoning. Thirty-one Plaintiffs alleged that the norovirus responsible for their illness was the result of the Defendant's negligent food handling. Jason moved for summary judgment on behalf of the Defendant, asserting procedural, as well as substantive deficiencies in Plaintiffs' case, which were supported by the expert testimony of an epidemiologist specializing in food safety. After almost four years of litigation, the Court granted Defendant's Motion, thus concluding the case in its entirety.

Adam L. Appel and Marquetta J. Bryan represented a major grocery store chain in a slip and fall case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  Marquetta Bryan obtained summary judgment for the client on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove the the condition over which she fell constituted a hazard, and failed to show that the defendant had superior knowledge of the condition.

On March 18, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld summary judgment in favor of a defendant builder represented by Dave Root and Cheryl Shaw.  Plaintiff claimed personal injuries stemming from a deck collapse eleven years after original construction by builder.  The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's claims in their entirety based on Georgia's statute of repose which prevents such claims from being asserted more than eight years after substantial completion.  Plaintiff appealed, claiming that the manner in which the builder had attached the deck to the house constituted fraud which estopped the builder from asserting the statute of repose as a defense.  The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal, but Plaintiff appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

In a case of first impression, Dave and Cheryl argued that their client was not estopped from asserting the statute of repose, and that this (construction) case was different from other (medical negligence) cases where the doctrine of "equitable estoppel" had been used to extend the time in which plaintiff could assert his claim.  The Georgia Supreme Court agreed, holding that the plaintiff's injury must occur within the repose period in order for equitable estoppel to apply. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied on April 12, 2011.  Rosenberg v. Falling Water, Inc., ___ S.E.2d ___, 2011 WL 977816.

Tom Carlock and Eric Frisch successfully defended an obstetrician at trial against allegations that one fraternal twin received an in utero brain injury related to weight discordance, pre-eclampsia, and low amniotic fluid levels. The Floyd County, Georgia jury returned a defense verdict in less than 5 hours, after hearing evidence that the twin pregnancy was managed appropriately and that the most likely cause of the injury was genetics.

Pete Werdesheim, John Bunyan, and Joe Kingma obtained partial summary judgment and succeeded in striking one of the plaintiff's experts in a legal-malpractice action in the United States District Court, Southern District of Georgia.  In short summary, the plaintiff contended that Carlock Copeland's clients failed to timely file a personal-injury action against a railroad under the FELA.  The underlying action was dismissed under the statute of limitations.  But in a 43-page order entered March 17, 2011, Judge J. Randal Hall struck one of the plaintiff's experts and granted partial summary judgment to Carlock Copeland's clients on grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish a jury issue as to whether he would have prevailed in the underlying action.  The case will proceed to trial on the plaintiff's remaining claim of breach of fiduciary duty.

Partner Dan McGrew and Of Counsel Kim Ruder recently obtained a defense verdict in DeKalb County during their representation of a local cardiology practice.  The case involved the administration of a cardiac stress test and the use of a treadmill.  The Plaintiff alleged at trial that the cardiology practice's employees were negligent in administering the test in that they (1) failed to properly advise her regarding the increase in treadmill speed and that (2) once she was unable to maintain the increased speed, the cardiology practice employees failed to take proper action to prevent her from falling off the treadmill.  Plaintiff claimed she suffered injuries to her neck, low back, and lower extremity, resulting in a permanent impairment.  In defending Plaintiff's claims, Dan and Kim successfully showed that the cardiology practice's employees who administered the treadmill test carefully monitored the plaintiff, counseled her extensively regarding the test, and administered the stress test accordingly to industry standard.  They demonstrated that the Plaintiff was responsible for her own injuries and not as a result of the manner that the test was administered.  They also demonstrated that the Plaintiff's injury complaints were long standing problems that pre-dated her fall from the treadmill.

Michele Jones and Joe Kingma obtained summary judgment for a certified public accountant in the Superior Court of Whitfield County.  The plaintiff sued the CPA and others, alleging that the plaintiff was cheated out of profits when his employer was sold to another company.  The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on claims including conspiracy, money had and received, and conversion.

Joe Hoffman, Pete Werdesheim, and Joe Kingma won Summary Judgment for a law firm that acted as escrow agent in connection with a proposed $35 million dollar real estate development. The Plaintiff claimed that the law firm breached its fiduciary duty by prematurely releasing funds to a lender that backed out of the deal and kept the cash. Carlock Copeland argued that the law firm complied with the express terms of the escrow agreement. The Motion was granted on February 28, 2011, and the law firm was dismissed from the case.

Lindsey Hettinger, Shannon Sprinkle, and Joe Kingma won Summary Judgment on February 16, 2011, for a well-known law firm.

The Law Firm had acted as escrow agent for a consortium of developers who built a network of sewer pump stations. The final cost exceeded the Seven Million Dollar budget and the primary contractor for the project demanded an additional $1.5M from the developers for allegedly completed but unpaid work. As the escrowed funds were insufficient to meet the new demands, the Law Firm filed an Interpleader action seeking to deposit the remaining escrow sums into court.

One of the developers, against whom the additional demands for payment from the contractor was made, filed a counterclaim against the Law Firm alleging that it had mishandled the escrow account, resulting in undisclosed damages.

Carlock Copeland aggressively defended the counterclaim demonstrating through the depositions of representatives for the counterclaimant developer that it had suffered no damages other than approximately $70,000 it had paid its lawyers to pursue meritless claims. The Court also found that the developer could not show that the Law Firm had done anything improper in its administration of the escrow account to cause any damages.

Carlock Copeland's Motion for Summary Judgment was successful and the developer's claims were dismissed.

This matter may be appealed so watch for further updates.

John Bunyan and Joe Kingma obtained dismissal for a national insurance carrier in the Superior Court of Fulton County. The plaintiff brought claims directly against the carrier based on its insured's representation of the plaintiff in a contract action. The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim.

Lindsey Hettinger, Michele Jones and Joe Kingma obtained dismissal for their lawyer clients on claims brought by heirs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The judge granted the motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and res judicata.

Lee Weatherly and Gary Lovell recently won a Motion to Dismiss in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of a correctional health care organization. In their Motion to Dismiss, Lee and Gary asked the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's action for negligence against their client for failure to state a claim. Lee argued that Plaintiff's failure to correctly follow South Carolina's pre-suit requirements to bring an action for the alleged negligence of a health care provider warranted dismissal. Plaintiff countered that the pre-suit requirements to bring a negligence action against a health care provider in South Carolina were procedural and not mandatory in Federal Court. Plaintiff also argued that the South Carolina pre-suit requirements to bring an action for negligence against a medical provider were unconstitutional.

The Court ruled that to file an action for medical malpractice in a South Carolina Federal Court, even if the terms "medical negligence" or "medical malpractice" are not specifically used in the Complaint, a Plaintiff must fully comply with the pre-suit requirements of South Carolina law. As Plaintiff had failed to comply with these requirements to bring an action for medical malpractice in South Carolina, the Court dismissed Lee and Gary's client from the suit. For more details on this case contact Lee Weatherly at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com or Gary Lovell at glovell@carlockcopeland.com.

The Oconee Community Service Board terminated Complainant's employment for negligence in performing her assigned duties, misconduct and conduct reflecting discredit on the CSB. The Complainant appealed the Board's decision to the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings. A hearing was held on September 15, 2010. Marquetta J. Bryan represented the employer at the hearing. In a decision issued January 31, 2011, the Administrative Board upheld the Community Service Board's decision to terminate the Complainant on the grounds that the employer had met its burden of proof, by presenting evidence and witnesses, to warrant upholding the employer's decision.

William Jones obtained dismissal with prejudice of a homeowner's lawsuit against a professional engineer related to the company's work at the site. He defeated the Plaintiff's challenge that it was not required to file an expert affidavit to assert claims against our client.

John Bunyan, John Rogers and Joe Kingma prevailed on a construction bonding company's claims against an audit firm in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Georgia. The paving company that provided the asphalt for most of the Georgia Department of Transportation's road building projects failed and left the bonding company on the hook for dozens of incomplete projects. The bonding company claimed it relied on the defendant's audit reports in issuing the bonds. Prior to issuing the bonds, the Plaintiff reviewed the Defendant's audited financial statements and attended meetings to evaluate the asphalt company's ability to perform. Carlock Copeland filed a motion to dismiss under Twombly and Iqbal, arguing that the Plaintiff never stated what was inaccurate in the audited financial statements or how the Defendant breached the standard of care in its audit. On January 25, 2011, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

This result may be appealed, so stay tuned for further results.

Lee C. Weatherly and D. Gary Lovell were successful in obtaining summary judgment in United States District Court for a private organization providing health care to a correctional institution in Lexington County, South Carolina. Plaintiff was the estate of an inmate at the Lexington County Detention Center who committed suicide by hanging in 2007. Following the inmate's death, Plaintiff filed an action against, among others, the correctional healthcare organization pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Lee argued that Plaintiff failed to bring forth any evidence that the private health care organization had a specific written or unwritten “policy or custom” that caused injury to the inmate, as is required to bring a cause of action against an organization under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lee also argued that Plaintiff failed to set forth any specific allegations against the private health care organization which rose to the level of deliberate indifference to the inmate's medical needs. The Judge found these arguments persuasive and ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to bring forth sufficient evidence to oppose the motion, dismissing the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim with prejudice. For more details on the case, contact Lee at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com or Gary at glovell@carlockcopeland.com.

Renee Little obtained summary judgment for a local pediatric group in a matter involving a slip and fall where plaintiff allegedly sustained disabling cervical injury.

Shannon Sprinkle, John Bunyan and Joe Kingma won the dismissal of a federal action against a law firm that handles collections matters throughout the Southeast. The Plaintiff alleged claims based on the law firm's initiating foreclosure proceedings against her. In dismissing the case, the Northern District of Georgia determined that the law firm was not engaged in "debt collection" under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act because it was enforcing its client's valid security interest in the Plaintiff's property. The district court further concluded that the assignment of the Plaintiff's loan and security deed was validly made retroactive under Georgia law. In addition to the FDCPA claims, the district court also dismissed the Plaintiff's state law fraud and civil RICO claims.

John Bunyan and Joe Kingma obtained the dismissal of a federal court action alleging that a lawyer committed legal malpractice while representing a corporation in a breach of contract action. The Northern District of Georgia determined that the individual Plaintiff, who was the owner of the corporation, did not have standing to assert any claim for damages based on the lawyer's representation of the corporation in the prior litigation.

Marquetta Bryan defeated a charge of employment discrimination on the behalf of a Georgia Community Service Board ("CSB"). The complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, and retaliated against for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On December 20, 2010, the EEOC issued its determination that it was unable to conclude that the CSB had violated any federal statutes with respect to the claimant's employment and dismissed claimant's charge.

Partner Gary Lovell and Associate Lee Weatherly recently won a Motion to Dismiss for their client, a hematologist, in a Charleston, South Carolina medical malpractice case. The Plaintiff alleged that the hematologist was negligent in his management of the Plaintiff's care after he underwent a splenectomy. The Plaintiff contended that the hematologist neglected to diagnose a post-surgical infection leading to an unnecessary cholecystectomy and months of unnecessary complications including pulmonary insufficiency, respiratory insufficiency and renal failure. As required under South Carolina law, the Plaintiff filed the supporting affidavit of a medical expert with his Notice of Intent to File Suit. However, the expert (a California surgeon) died in the days before the affidavit was filed with the Court. Lee argued to the Court that Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to File Suit was deficient and invalid because the Plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of a living expert witness contemporaneously with their Notice of Intent to File Suit as required under South Carolina law. Second, he argued that Plaintiffs Notice of Intent to File Suit was deficient and invalid because the Plaintiff's expert witness was not Board Certified in hematology nor did he actively practice in that area. Finally, he argued that Plaintiffs failed to file a Summons and Complaint within the time requirements mandated by South Carolina law. The Judge found these arguments persuasive and ruled that the hematologist be dismissed with prejudice. For more information on the case, contact Lee at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com or Gary at glovell@carlockcopeland.com.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a defense verdict in a brain damaged baby case handled by Tom Carlock and Eric Frisch. The case was tried to a defense verdict after more than five weeks of testimony. On appeal, the issues included whether the trial court properly limited the amount of time the injury child was present in the courtroom. In a case of first impression in Georgia, the Court held that the trial court has the discretion to limit a plaintiff's presence in the courtroom in cases involving severe neurological injuries.

On November 17, 2010, Shannon Sprinkle and Joe Kingma defeated claims by a recently divorced husband against a lawyer who at one time had represented both husband and wife. The husband claimed that the lawyer, while representing both the husband and the wife, drafted a divorce agreement which was adopted and made a part of the divorce decree. He claimed that there was a "side deal" to give parcels of land back to him after the divorce was final. The trial judge based his grant of summary judgment on the terms of the executed settlement agreement and his unwillingness to collaterally attack the divorce decree which had not been vacated. Additionally, the judge ruled that the husband's assertions amounted to a confession of an attempt to defraud his creditors. "The principal that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing," in pari delicto, is a common defense in accounting malpractice cases, but is seldom seen in attorney malpractice cases. This result may be appealed, so check back for further developments.

David Overstreet and Doug MacKelcan recently obtained summary judgment for a lawyer accused of professional negligence in the Lowcountry. In the suit, the Plaintiff claimed the lawyer inappropriately prepared an elderly woman's estate plan resulting in over a $400,000 loss to the estate. After considerable discovery, including expert depositions, the Court granted the lawyer's motion as a matter of law.

Charles M. McDaniel, Jr., in a case pending in Federal Court in Mobile, AL, secured a multi-million dollar settlement on behalf of an excess insurer in a catastrophic industrial accident, which occurred on the insured's premises. The excess insurer settled the claim of a contractor's injured employee, and pursuant to an indemnity agreement between the insured and the contractor, obtained contribution from the contractor's excess insurer for the contractor's share of the loss.

John Rogers, Christopher Meeks, and Joe Kingma obtained a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court for a lawyer who had been appointed as a receiver for several convenience stores as the result of a state civil RICO proceeding. The RICO proceedings developed out of allegations that the previous owners of the convenience stores had engaged in a scheme to defraud their customers by tampering with the fuel pumps. The lawyer was appointed receiver and ordered to seize all assets and property of the stores. Nonetheless, the new owners of the convenience stores claimed that the lawyer unlawfully seized certain inventory property contained in the stores. The new owners filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Carlock Copeland defeated the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary junction and filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted on the basis of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims against a state court appointed receiver. Despite the plaintiffs'' repeated losses, they petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision but were denied certiorari after Carlock Copeland's lawyers filed their brief in opposition.

David Overstreet and Andrew Countryman obtained the dismissal of a legal malpractice claim in South Carolina on grounds of attorney immunity to claims by third parties. Plaintiff sued his ex-wife and her lawyer for interference with contractual relationships and civil conspiracy after Plaintiff maintained they prevented a multi-million dollar business deal from closing. The court granted our motion to dismiss on the grounds that ex-husband Plaintiff had no standing to sue the ex-wife's lawyer for actions taken in the course of his representation.

On September 30, 2010, Wade Copeland and Lee Atkinson obtained a verdict in favor of the Defendant doctor and her anesthesia service in an action tried in the State Court of Gwinnett County. The Plaintiff claimed that the doctor, who is a pain management specialist, unnecessarily and inappropriately performed a cervical epidural injection for a condition known as atypical facial pain. The Plaintiff, who had no prior problems with her left side, ended up having a significant disability to her left hand which became totally disabled. She also had significant permanent injuries to both her left arm and her left leg. The Plaintiffs contended that the doctor negligently injected medicine into the spinal cord itself. The Plaintiff also contended that the procedure should have never been performed and that it was performed at the wrong level in the spinal cord. The defense acknowledged that there had been an injury to the Plaintiff's left hand resulting from the needle striking the spinal cord, but this was a risk of the procedure and not a breach of the standard of care. The Defendant and the defense experts agreed that if medicine was injected into the spinal cord that it would have been a breach of the standard of care. The Plaintiffs had incurred over $90,000 in medical expenses with the prospects of approximately $400,000 in future medicals and claimed another $500,000 in future lost wages. Prior to trial, the Plaintiff's attorney made a "non-negotiable" demand of $1.5 million that was rejected. The attorney asked the jury to return a verdict for $6 million in his final argument. The trial took nine days and the jury deliberated for nine hours before returning its verdict for the Defendants.

Marquetta Bryan defeated a charge of employment discrimination on the behalf of a Georgia Community Service Board ("CSB"). The complainant alleged that he was subject to illegal discrimination on the basis of his sex (male) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. He resigned his employment and alleged that he was constructively discharged due to the environment created by the alleged discrimination. Marquetta filed a response to the claimant's charge on the behalf of the Board. On September 30, 2010, the EEOC issued its determination that it was unable to conclude that the CSB had violated any federal statutes with respect to the claimant's employment and dismissed claimant's charge.

Michele Jones and Joe Kingma represented a law firm that was sued by a Builder in Georgia Superior Court. The claims arose out of a failed real estate development and a failed mortgage lender. The Builder had acquired lots financed by an acquisition and development loan that was closed by Michele and Joe's client. The development ultimately failed, as did the mortgage lender. The construction company sued the failed lender and its principal, a related builder, the Bank that had taken assignment of the A&D loans, and a Title Company. The lawyer faced claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff also attempted to assert claims for conspiracy, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. All of these claims were dismissed on summary judgment by the court's order on September 8, 2010. The case goes on against other defendants, and may be appealed, so check back for further developments.

Shannon Sprinkle, John Bunyan, and Joe Kingma achieved summary judgment for a City Attorney faced with allegations of malicious prosecution filed in Federal Court. The Mayor had been indicted on two counts of violating his oath of office after engaging in questionable transactions involving City funds and endangering a community development grant due to conflicts of interest. After that indictment was dismissed based on the technical invalidity of a City Ethics Ordinance, the Mayor sued the City Attorney, City Manager, and former and current City Council members.

Carlock Copeland filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Federal Judge granted on August 27, 2010. The Court found that there was no evidence that the defendant instigated the prosecution or that he knew that a city ordinance had not been properly passed.

This matter may be appealed, so stay tuned for further updates.

Jason Hammer represented a dog owner sued in Cobb County State Court after his Chow mix bit a next door neighbor. It was undisputed that the dog's rabies vaccinations were not current and the Plaintiff underwent $12,000 worth of rabies shots in addition to internal and external sutures to repair the bite wound to his forearm. The case was defended primarily on liability. Although the Plaintiff claimed the dog jumped the owner's fence, Defendant presented the Plaintiff's ex-fiancé, who testified that she witnessed the incident and saw Plaintiff reach over the fence to pet the dog when the bite occurred. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant in less than an hour.

Pete Werdesheim secured dismissal of a legal-malpractice action in the State Court of Fulton County.  In short summary, the plaintiffs contended that Carlock Copeland's clients had missed the statute of limitations in an underlying personal-injury action and then concealed the mistake.  In an order entered August 17, 2010, Judge Jay M. Roth found that even after amending their complaint, plaintiffs failed to state a claim for fraud that would toll the statute of limitations, necessitating dismissal of the case.

Adam Appel was successful in obtaining a defense verdict after a three day trial in United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of his Correctional Officer client in an Excessive force and deliberate indifference to an inmates serious medical needs case. The Plaintiff, an inmate, alleged that three correctional officers used excessive force against him during the intake process resulting in a dislocated shoulder which required surgical repair. The inmate also alleged that the correctional officers denied his request for medical attention after the alleged use of excessive force. The correctional officers denied the inmates claim that they used force against him or that he requested medical attention. The plaintiff did require surgical repair to his shoulder, however, the defendants argued that the Plaintiff had a preexisting condition that resulted in a dislocation from the application of minimal force. The parties agreed to a bench trial before Judge Orinda Evans. Judge Evans entered a Verdict for all defendants on July 28, 2010. The case is Willie Waters v. Bennie Parnell, Lt. F.E. Wiley and Durane Carter.

Michele Jones and Joe Kingma had their attorney client dismissed from a lawsuit filed by a title insurance company. Judge Barrett in Towns Superior Court granted the motion. This case may be appealed, so stay tuned for further developments.

Partner Gary Lovell and Associate Lee Weatherly were successful in obtaining summary judgment in Charleston, South Carolina for a local urgent care facility in a wrongful death, medical malpractice case. The Plaintiff alleged that one of the facility's physicians and his physician's assistant were negligent by failing to send the patient to the hospital, or directly contacting her gastroenterologists, when she was seen for continuing abdominal pain and weight loss of over 125 pounds.  The Plaintiff claimed that at the time of the visit the patient was suffering from chronic mesenteric ischemia, which resulted in her death only weeks after her visit to the urgent care facility.  In their motion for summary judgment, and at the motion hearing, Lee argued that the Plaintiff's expert could not state to the requisite degree of medical certainty that had the patient been admitted to the hospital, or her gastroenterologist been contacted, her death could have been avoided.  Therefore, the urgent care facility was entitled to summary judgment on the element of proximate cause.  The Judge found this argument persuasive and ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to bring forth any evidence of proximate cause and dismissed the case with prejudice.  For more information on the case, contact Lee at lweatherly@carlockcopeland.com or Gary at glovell@carlockcopeland.com.

Partner Mike Ethridge and Associate Jennifer Blanchard obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action they filed on behalf of an insurer in the South Carolina Federal District Court. The court granted Mr. Ethridge's Motion for Summary Judgment and held that the claims being asserted against the insured fell within the policy's express exclusion for claims arising from an assault or battery. As a result the court ruled that the insurance carrier had no obligation to either indemnify or defend the insured in the underlying tort action.

Partner Adam Appel and Of Counsel Kim Ruder recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a Medical College of Georgia anesthesiologist in a medical malpractice case. In that case, the Plaintiffs claimed that the anesthesiologist was negligent in the manner that he transferred care of a neonate to the NICU staff. Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the doctor's conduct and the conduct of his resident, the child's endotracheal tube became insecure and the child lost his airway, coded and suffered a significant brain injury and Cerebral Palsy. Plaintiffs claimed damages against the doctor as well as other medical professionals in an amount exceeding $16 million dollars. On summary judgment, Adam and Kim successfully argued that the anesthesiologist, as an employee of the Board of Regents, was entitled to official immunity for the claims being asserted against him, and was thus entitled to dismissal. As a result, the physician was dismissed from the suit. The case remains pending against other health care providers and this case could be appealed following the trial of the matter, which is scheduled for November 2010.

Charlie McDaniel and Julie Oh obtained summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action filed in the USDC for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division.  The Court ruled the insurer was not obligated to provide a defense or indemnification under a homeowner's policy and an umbrella policy, for a suit filed against the insured arising out of the sale of a house.  The Court determined certain allegations contained in the complaint did not arise as a result of an occurrence, and thus coverage was not afforded.  Additionally, for the remaining allegations, the policy's business activities exclusion barred coverage.