Rouse Hendricks German May PC represents clients in a number of different practice areas. Below are selected cases involving clients of the firm.

2004 - Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri): $452 million jury verdict for plaintiff utility on product liability claims arising out of power plant explosion.

2004 - Excel Laminates, Inc. v. Lear Corp. (U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas/Private Arbitration following settlement): $44 million arbitration award in destruction of business case for plaintiff debtor in bankruptcy following settlement of federal court case involving claims for breach of contract and fraud.

2004 - Fru-Con Technical Services, Inc. v. Grain Processing Corp. (U.S. District Court for the S.D. of Indiana): Obtained $1.85 million judgment in court-tried action for plaintiff construction contractor for breach of contract arising out of claims for delay and additional work caused by owner.

2002 - Vaughters, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri): $6.2 million jury verdict on behalf of group of doctors in breach of contract/breach of fiduciary duty action against Medicaid program insurer.

2001 - PAS Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Corp. - The firm obtained summary judgment for Sprint in case where representatives of several African-American owned businesses suedundercivil rights statutes claiming that Sprint’s spending forvendor services was conducted in a discriminatory manner. More...

2000 - KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.- The firm successfullydefended an alleged patent infringement case involving an air mattress for medical uses. More...

1999 - Battenfeld of America Holding Co. and SMS Capital Corp. v. - In an accounting malpractice action, the firm achieved a $21.7 million jury verdict against a large, regional accounting firm that performed an acquisition audit for the purchase of a manufacturing company located in Kansas. More...

1997 - FAG Bearings Corp. v. Gulf States Paper Co. - Inthis environmental litigation, the firmdefended a cost recovery action brought under CERCLA and state law claims for allocation of responsibility for carcinogenic volatile organic chemical (VOC) contamination in groundwater in the Joplin, Missouri area.

1997 - Societe Anonym Francaise de Reinsurance v. First Excess Reinsurance Co. - The firm represented a reinsurance company in a defense of a complex dispute involving two quota share reinsurance agreements covering over 800 underlying reinsurance treaties.

1997 - Fru-Con Construction v. Home Insurance Co. - The firm represented Fru-Con Construction in an insurance coverage dispute under a Builder’s Risk policy. This dispute arose out of a turbine failure in a power plant in West Virginia.

1997 - Berec Nigeria, Ltd., et al. v. Eveready Battery Co. (U.S. District Court, E.D. Mo.): $950,000 jury verdict (actual damages only) for plaintiffs followed by multi-million settlement pending appeal of court’s decision declining to submit punitive damages.

1996 - Brooks Erection & Construction Co. v. BP Oil Co. (U.S. District Court for the E.D. Penn.): $2.8 million jury verdict for plaintiff construction company on claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit for additional and out of scope work.

1996 - Amador, et al. v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. (Private Baseball-Type Arbitration): $6.5 million arbitration award for minority shareholders in shareholder dispute alleging breach of fiduciary duty by majority shareholders.

1995 - Lappin v. Hutchens Industries. -In this products liability case, the firm achieved a directed verdict forthe client at the end of trial. During the trial,examination of Plaintiff’s main expert successfully resulted in the exclusion of that expert from testifying.

Disclaimer - The content herein is for general informational purposes only. The firm is not soliciting clients via its website. The content herein is not legaladvice and should not be considered or relied upon as legal advice. Because each matter involvesdifferent facts and circumstances, online readers should not act upon the content herein without seeking legal advice.