Listed below are a few examples of commercial litigation cases in which Day & Blair has successfully represented its clients. For more information about any of these cases, please feel free to contact us.

Failure of insurance broker to obtain adequate errors and omissions policy for business, and failure of insurer to provide coverage for insured's business. A large, multi-state insurance claims handler sought to protect itself from any errors and omissions in the course of its business.  Given that claims handling was the core of the company's business, its primary risk was negligent or bad faith handling of a customer's claim.  To obtain coverage for that risk, the company contracted with a local insurance broker.  The broker ultimately obtained a policy for the company from a prominent, multi-national insurance company.  Unfortunately, the broker did not specify that the company provided claims handling services, and the policy that was issued excluded coverage for claims handling.  When the company needed coverage under the policy, they hired Day & Blair to file a lawsuit against the insurance broker for negligently procuring an inadequate insurance policy and against the insurer for providing a policy that it should have known was insufficient for Day & Blair's client. After a multitude of depositions in a number of states and millions of pages of documents were produced by the parties, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Failure to adequately perform IT services under contract, and failure to pay for computer software license.  Day & Blair represented a multi-national financial and data services corporation. The client faced a dispute with one of its affiliates regarding more than a decade of business activity, with several claims and counterclaims by each party. In the course of the lawsuit, the parties produced hundreds of thousands of pages in paper, and millions more on computer CD-ROM. Day & Blair culled the relevant documents and scanned them as computer images. To manage the high volume of evidence, Day & Blair maintained a database of the document images with the capacity to search by author, topic, date, and other pertinent terms. The parties also debated in court the extent to which backup tapes, containing more than seven years worth of miscellaneous emails, should be discovered and produced in the case. Despite the massive scope of the lawsuit, the case was resolved in less than seventeen months with positive results for the client.

Covenant not to compete violation, and disputed business valuation.  In another matter, Day & Blair's clients — a corporation and its founders — were sued by their former company. The former company alleged that Day & Blairs clients were competing against the company in violation of law and a contractual covenant not to compete. Before Day & Blair's involvement, the former company obtained an oppressive temporary restraining order and sought to keep the order in effect for eighteen months through a temporary injunction. On less than one week's notice,Day & Blair successfully argued that the court should dissolve the restraining order and enter a much narrower, more reasonable temporary injunction. The litigation then became a battle over the value of the stock that the corporation was required to purchase from Day & Blair's clients. The case was resolved within nine months of filing.

Insurance coverage.  In an insurance coverage lawsuit, Day & Blair filed suit on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, who was mentally retarded and elderly, was paralyzed during a severe head-on collision. At the time of the wreck, the plaintiff was riding in a vehicle owned and driven by an employee of a company which provided services to disabled persons such as the plaintiff. The company's employee drove negligently, but had no liability insurance. As a result, the plaintiff filed a claim against the company's uninsured motorist carrier. The insurer denied coverage, arguing that the Outlook employee was driving his own car that day and was thus not covered by the policy. The insurer made no settlement offer before trial. At trial, Day & Blair proved that coverage existed because the employee's vehicle was a "temporary substitute" for the insured company's vans that were broken down. The court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, finding that his claims were covered by the $1 million policy limits.

Securities fraud and breach of contract.  Day & Blair's clients sold a thermoplastic polymer company to a large, multi-national manufacturing corporation. A few years later, the buyer filed suit in federal court asserting securities fraud and breach of contract claims against Day & Blair's clients, the sellers. The buyer sought over $16 million in damages. The sellers filed a counterclaim for $1.6 million to recover the remaining payments owed on the sale of their business. A massive discovery fight ensued, with nearly 50 depositions taken around the country and tens of thousands of pages of documents produced. After a four-week jury trial, Day & Blair's clients prevailed in all respects. They defeated the buyer's claims and received a verdict for the $1.6 million owed to them. Day & Blair's clients also recovered over $1.2 million in attorney's fees and expenses and over $400,000 in prejudgment interest. The buyer appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's judgment and awarded an additional $40,000 in prejudgment interest. In all, after all the prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest was accounted for, both of Day & Blair's clients collected judgments of over $2 million each.