An Update from Our Firm about COVID-19

Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner remains fully operational and committed to serving our clients and colleagues throughout the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. As we follow the CDC guidelines and practice social distancing, we remain available for phone consultations and scheduled in-person meetings with both current and prospective clients and colleagues. Please contact our office by email or by calling 713-222-7211 with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Commercial Litigation Archives

Lawsuits Filed Over Coronavirus (COVID-19) Business Interruption Insurance

Lawsuits are being filed across the country, including in Texas, over insurance companies denying claims for business interruption arising from the coronavirus pandemic. Business interruption insurance typically covers the loss of income that a business suffers due to a disaster.

Business Interruption Coverage for COVID-19?

In response to growing concerns of community spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), sports organizations, local schools, and even the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo have ceased operations for the foreseeable future. As businesses consider the human and health impact of this global pandemic, a common question raised is how any business interruptions and related financial losses may be covered by their insurance policies. Whether your business has drastically experienced economic loss or has temporarily closed its doors due to city-wide closures or travel restrictions, you may find relief from your insurance coverage provider.

JPMorgan Chase Has Re-launched It's Arbitration Clause for Their Credit Cardholders

JPMorgan Chase, the country's largest bank and biggest U.S. credit-card issuer, has reintroduced to over 40 million credit card holders a controversial policy that forces their customers to use arbitration instead of being able to go to court to resolve payment disputes or joining class-action suits. This new clause stipulates that any disputes between consumers and Chase must be brought up before a private arbitrator.

$25.5 Million Dollar Bad Faith Insurance Verdict in Oklahoma

At the end of a two-week trial, an Oklahoma jury awarded $25.5 million to the family of a cancer patient who was denied coverage by Aetna. The patient, Orrana Cunningham, had stage four nasopharyngeal cancer near her brain stem. Due to the location of the cancer, her doctors wanted her to receive proton beam therapy, which is a targeted form of radiation that could pinpoint the tumor without the potential of blindness or other side effects of standard radiation. Aetna denied her coverage for this treatment, calling it "investigational" and "experimental."

Jury Hands Down Verdict of $25.5 Million Against Aetna

An Oklahoma widower was awarded $25.5 million by a jury against Aetna health insurance because his wife, a cancer patient, was denied coverage by Aetna. The jury found that Aetna acted recklessly.

State Farm Avoids Trial with Preliminary Agreement to Pay $250,000,000

One of the largest auto insurance companies has reached a $250 million preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that State Farm violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act). The plaintiffs believe State Farm funneled money through several advocacy groups, which in turn kept donor lists anonymous, in order to elect a certain candidate to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004.

Broken Promises: How to Recover from Sub-Par Contractors Post-Harvey

Following the wake of Hurricane Harvey, thousands of homes were in need of extensive and immediate repair. Before Harvey had even left the state, contractors descended on homeowners. Many of these contractors made promises they could not fulfill-sometimes intentionally-to get these homeowners business.

Last Year's Worst Corporate Conduct

While the newspapers, news broadcasters, and social media may highlight the most high-profile examples of corporate collapses and scandal, they are hardly isolated incidents. Well known corporations are behind some of the biggest scandals of the decade, some corporations include Wells Fargo, McKession Corp., and Equifax. Each story is result of a corporate culture that values profit over accountability, integrity, and opportunity, or in other words wants more "bang for its buck." The potential negative impact for corporate misconduct is the legal consequences, such as penalty, fines, and/or jail time. Despite this, corrupt corporations are willing to commit wrongful acts in order to gain large incentives. "The world's 20 leading banks spent an estimate $350 billion on costs related to misconduct over the last five years, including penalties, fines, settlements, and other legal expenses."

Employees May Profit from Disclosing Their Employer's Fraud

The False Claims Act allows people who are employed by companies receiving federal benefits, such as grants, to file actions against their employer for defrauding the federal government. These claimants are informally known as "whistleblowers." Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages. The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the federal government. Claims are most commonly filed by persons with insider knowledge of false claims involving health care, military, or other government spending programs.

Senate Considering Repeal of CFPB Arbitration Rule

In the fine print of credit card agreements and bank deposit agreements, banks and credit card companies frequently require consumers to agree to give up their right to sue the bank in court-even for serious violations of consumer rights-and submit any claims to arbitration. In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a rule placing a rather mild restriction on such agreements-they could not prevent consumers from filing or joining class action lawsuits. However, a joint resolution has been proposed in Congress to block the rule under the Congressional Review Act, a law that provides an expedited process for Congress to overrule regulations issued by agencies of the executive branch. The resolution has already passed in the House of Representatives and is pending in the Senate.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Personal Injury Large Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs, taking a lead role in the plaintiffs’ steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Personal Injury Plant Fire and Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Personal Injury Work Site Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm’s client.

  • $12 Million Auto Accident 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $30 Million Personal Injury Burn Victims

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $30 million.

Our Record Of Success

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

Read More Success Stories

Let Us Help You Request a Free Consultation Today

Get Help Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Back to top