< Back

Jack Daniel and Clinton Magill Secure Partial Voluntary Dismissal in Construction Related Products Liability Case

February 27, 2019

Jack Daniel and Clinton Magill recently secured a voluntary dismissal of certain cross-claims asserted against their product supplier client in a construction defect case in Charleston County, South Carolina.  In this case, homeowner-plaintiffs sued various subcontractors, including a sprayfoam applicator and its principals, after renovations were performed on its home.  In response, the sprayfoam applicator and its principals brought third-party claims against Jack and Clinton’s client—the supplier of a chemical product used to produce the sprayfoam applied at the subject property.  After several amendments, the plaintiff eventually added Jack and Clinton’s client as a direct defendant, and the sprayfoam applicator subsequently re-asserted its claims against their client as cross-claims for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Negligence; and (3) Indemnity.  In August 2018, Jack and Clinton filed a motion for summary judgment as to the sprayfoam applicator’s Breach of Contract and Negligence cross-claims in the Charleston County Circuit Court, arguing that (1) these cross-claims were nothing more than disguised claims for indemnity; (2) these cross-claims were barred because the rights of the sprayfoam applicator and its principals had been assigned to another company that was not a party to the lawsuit; and (3) the principals of the spray foam applicator had no standing to bring these cross-claims because they were not parties to the underlying agreement upon which they based their claims.  On the morning of the hearing in December 2018, opposing counsel contacted Clinton and agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, these cross-claims for Breach of Contract and Negligence.  Thus, as a result of their motion and creative legal arguments, Jack and Clinton secured a voluntary dismissal of two out of the three cross-claims asserted against their client in this case without incurring any additional expenses for a hearing and/or further briefing.

For informational purposes only. Past success does not indicate the likelihood of success in future cases.