GENERAL TRADING, LLC v. MIA COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, NO. 3D22-861 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
In 2023, The Ferraro Law Firm prevailed on appeal at the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed a $1M judgment issued against Hyba General Trading, LLC in Hyba General Trading, LLC v. MIA Collection Services, LLC. READ MORE.
FERRARO v. MCGOVERN, NO. 2020-000657 (N.Y. 1st DEP’T 2021)
On April 22, 2021, in an appeal before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, The Ferraro Law Firm obtained a reversal of a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants in a negligence claim. The firm’s appellate team persuaded the First Department that the expert causation evidence produced by the plaintiff supported a material issue of fact regarding causation that should be submitted to the jury.
TOTAL ASSET RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. METLIFE, INC., et al., NO. 2019-3806 (N.Y. 1st DEP’T 2021)
Over the last decade, The Ferraro Law Firm has worked alongside the New York Office of the Attorney General to unearth and investigate a multi-billion-dollar fraudulent escheatment scheme perpetrated by nine of the largest life insurance companies in the United States who unlawfully retained abandoned life insurance proceeds that should have been escheated to New York. With TARS’s assistance, the State of New York has already secured hundreds of millions of dollars in escheatments from the defendants. Moreover, on December 10, 2020, the firm earned a tide-changing appellate victory allowing the case to proceed on the merits and enabling the firm to hold the defendants accountable for the full extent of their fraud.
CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. v. LOSNER, 2020 WL 1289822 (Fla. 3d DCA MAR. 18, 2020)
In 2020, the firm prevailed in an appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court’s denial of Continental Motors, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
EFRON v. UBS FIN. SERVICES INC. OF PUERTO RICO, 2020 WL 697721 (Fla. 3d DCA FEB. 12, 2020)
In 2020, the firm secured an extraordinarily rare reversal of an arbitration award, totaling $11 million, by the Third District Court of Appeal. Although the Federal Arbitration Act limits a party’s ability to vacate an arbitration award, the firm successfully argued that its client was denied important rights at arbitration, prompting the Third District to vacate the award and grant the firm’s client a new arbitration hearing.
FLA. POWER & LIGHT v. COOK, 277 So. 3d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
In 2019, the firm prevailed in a petition by Florida Power & Light for a writ of certiorari to quash two orders denying its motions for protective orders as to critical discovery sought by the plaintiff in an asbestos case.
DELISLE v. CRANE CO., 258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)
In 2018, the firm won a high-profile appeal before the Florida Supreme Court in DeLisle. The firm’s appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Daubert standard, which purported to statutorily preempt Florida’s common law Frye standard governing expert testimony. In its opinion, the Court struck down the Daubert standard as unconstitutional, reaffirmed the state’s adherence to Frye, and reinstated the $8 million jury verdict secured by the firm.
NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYS. CORP. v. BRITT, 241 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
In 2017, the firm secured an affirmance by the Third District Court of Appeal of a $9 million jury verdict obtained in an asbestos case against Northrop Grumman Systems Corp.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. HUBBIRD, 194 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
In 2016, the firm secured a per curiam affirmance of a $28 million judgment against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a product liability case involving a deceased man who smoked Lucky Strike, Viceroy, and Winston cigarettes from 1945 to 1993.
AUBIN v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015)
In 2015, the firm prevailed in a monumental appeal before the Florida Supreme Court in Aubin. The Court’s seminal Aubin decision rejected the defense-friendly Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, and made clear that Florida courts must follow the more neutral Restatement (Second) of Torts: Products Liability. As a result, Florida consumers may now prove that a product was “defectively designed” simply by showing that it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. This ruling did away with the prior standard requiring Florida consumers to establish that a “reasonable alternative design” existed. In addition, the Court held that the widely asserted “learned intermediary” defense to failure-to-warn claims is “not a complete defense,” but rather is subject to a fact-intensive reasonableness assessment. Based on these holdings, the Court reinstated the $14 million jury verdict secured by the firm.