Photo of George A. Pisano

George Pisano has 30 years of experience handling a wide range of personal injury and casualty-related matters. His practice focuses primarily on the defense of product liability claims with particular emphasis on representing worldwide manufacturers of heavy machinery. He is well versed in fire litigation, having handled numerous such cases for electronics and appliance manufacturers. In his role as National Counsel for the world’s largest machine tool manufacturer, George has substantial experience in cases involving industrial equipment and metalworking machinery.

One of the items an insurance adjuster will look at when valuing a product liability claim is to see how much the plaintiff incurred in medical expenses and medical bills after the accident. Naturally, if the injuries sustained by the plaintiff are truly “serious,” it is reasonable to expect that there will be a sizeable claim for reimbursement for the plaintiff’s medical expenses. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are aware of this and as a result will typically try to inflate the figure that represents the plaintiff’s past medical expenses. An experienced plaintiffs’ attorney recognizes that the defendant’s insurance carrier may value their client’s claim based in part on the amount of the plaintiff’s incurred medical expenses, and, as such, they want to make that figure as large as possible to maximize their client’s potential settlement or recovery at trial.

Continue Reading Recovery for Medical Expenses When a Plaintiff with Medical Insurance Opts to Treat on a Lien Basis

In most product liability lawsuits, the plaintiff will sue under theories of negligence and strict liability. In such cases, the plaintiff may allege that the product’s manufacturer was negligent or that the product was “defective” for failure to include available safety devices that would have prevented the accident. Because negligence claims focus on whether the manufacturer acted “reasonably” when it designed the product at issue in the case, the manufacturer is allowed to present evidence comparing the product with those of competitors. For example, the manufacturer can introduce evidence showing that the industry custom & practice was not to include such safety devices. To preclude such evidence of industry custom & practice, plaintiffs typically drop negligence claims on the eve of trial and, instead, only try the case on a theory of strict liability – design defect (under either the “consumer expectations test” or “risk/benefit test”).
Continue Reading California Appeals Court Rules Industry Custom & Practice May Be Admissible in Strict Products Liability Cases