Our client owned a prominent apple orchard in Londonderry, New Hampshire. He was accused by his neighbor of killing her horses with the pesticides he used in his orchards. The State was called in and sure enough, there were traces of pesticides found on her property. The neighbor sued for the death of seven horses.
Richard identified the need for experts. In this case he brought two vetinary toxicologists (at the time there were only 8 in the country) and entimology experts from the Extension Service at UNH in to testify. Through their testimony, and five days of trial, Richard was able to prove that whatever was killing the neighbor’s horses, it was not the pesticides from the orchard. Richard's effective use of experts and their knowledge, combined with his ability to make a persuasive case resulted in a favorable verdict for his client.
The horse owner appealed to the Supreme Court but the verdict was upheld.
A young man had just learned to drive and was proud of his new car. A friend wanted to check it out. They went out for a ride and the friend promptly wrapped the car around a telephone pole. The young owner was in the passenger seat and was severely injured. Because the driver was underage and licensed, he had no insurance. It seemed that the young owner would have to cover the cost of his own injuries at enormous expense.
However, the young man's family prudently sought Richard's council. Knowing that despite not having coverage himself, the friend's parents certainly would. Richard also knew that uninsured and "underinsured" coverages were part of every New Hampshire automobile insurance policy. Richard pursued the friend's family’s own automobile policy where there was indeed uninsured motorist coverage. The young owner was paid for all his medical bills, pain and suffering and the permanent nature of some of his injuries.
The family's decision to hire an experienced lawyer to help negotiate through the morass of policy language allowed their son to be rightfully compensated for his injuries, as well as his pain and suffering.
A gentleman went to a bank in Bedford, New Hampshire. He waited in his car in the parking lot for his girlfriend to finish her business in the bank.
Much to his shock, when she left the bank her former boyfriend was with her. Even more shocking, the boyfriend was brandishing a gun!
The gunman began to fire at the gentleman in his car and for at least one shot rested his gun on the door of his car. The man peeled out of the parking lot and escaped with only minor injuries.
The gentleman sued the gunman's insurance company for the injuries under his automobile policy. His argument was that he was injured by “the use of an automobile” when the gunman used the car door to take aim.
Richard represented the insurance company and prevailed before the Supreme Court. Use of an automobile means the usual use of a car, not as an aid to aiming a gun. Richard's understanding of the law allowed him to make a nuanced, yet powerful argument that saved the insurance company unduly paying damages.
I have mediated a myriad of cases, including construction cases with countless subcontractors and a general contractors up against the building owner, landlord/tenant cases, real estate purchase disputes, wrongful foreclosure claims and folks injured in automobile accidents and countless other ways. Mediation is most often the best solution for all parties involved in a case. Experience makes a difference.