Experience

Representative Construction Litigation Experience

  • Represented one of the nation's largest geotechnical subcontractors in claims against a major general contractor arising from construction of pier improvements at an East Coast naval facility
  • Part of defense trial team in a four-week jury trial of a quasi-state agency in $22 million differing site condition claim arising out of the construction of $100 million marine terminal
  • Represented major gas utility in defense of $40 million claim by steel pipeline contractor
  • Represented major gas utility in $10 million dispute involving pipeline contractor's differing site condition claims and counterclaims for construction defects — engagement included successful motion to dismiss under economic loss rule of negligent misrepresentation claims brought by pipeline contractor against major gas utility (Tetra Tech Construction, Inc. v. Summit Natural Gas of Maine, Inc., 2016 WL 3881056)
  • Represented homeowner in arbitration against home/building mover involving warranty and breach of contract claims
  • Represented HVAC subcontractor in multi-week arbitration against general contractor involving claim of wrongful termination from project at an East Coast naval facility
  • Provided trial support and motion and appellate brief drafting on behalf of developer/builder in breach of contract case brought by potential purchaser
  • Represented surety in litigation involving contractor, state agency, and mountaintop utility construction
  • Obtained partial motion to dismiss on behalf of HVAC contractor on defamation and anti-trust claims

Representative Medical Malpractice Experience

  • Represented nurse practitioner in case involving alleged prescription interaction
  • Represented optometrist in case involving neurologic disorder and complications
  • Represented orthopedic surgeon in case involving neurological surgical complication
  • Represented anesthesiologist in case involving neurologic complication
  • Represented radiologist in case involving alleged misdiagnosis
  • Represented hospital and providers in case involving alleged delayed transfer
  • Obtained dismissal of claim against physician based on failure to comply with statute of limitations
  • Provided trial support and drafting in multiple medical malpractice trials resulting in defense verdicts

Representative General Litigation Experience

  • Represented helicopter engine manufacturer in product liability case in three week federal court trial and in First Circuit appeal
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of attorney accused of malpractice; affirmed on appeal (Brooks v. Lemieux, 157 A.3d 798)
  • Obtained summary judgment in favor of plowing contractor in slip and fall case at large distribution facility
  • Represented social service provider in administrative bid appeal
  • Part of Verrill Dana team representing League of Women Voters as amici in litigation related to Ranked Choice Voting in Maine
  • Obtained asylum status for client from Rwanda fleeing persecution based on political beliefs
  • Represented witness to will in case alleging decedent’s lack of capacity.
  • Represented beneficiaries in will contest

Attorney/Judicial Misconduct: Defense against Legal Malpractice Claim

In Brooks v. Lemieux, 2017 ME 55, Maine’s Law Court upheld the award of summary judgment in favor of Verrill Dana’s client in a legal malpractice case arising from the dismissal by the federal court of the Plaintiff’s employment discrimination action. The Law Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to present prima facie evidence of causation flowing from the Defendant’s alleged malpractice. In reaching this decision, both the trial court and the Law Court found that the opinions of the Plaintiff’s expert were insufficient to create a trial-worthy issue.

Elections and Constitutional Law: Constitutionality of Ranked Choice Voting

Verrill Dana represented the League of Women Voters in two proceedings before the Maine Supreme Court relating to the constitutionality of Maine’s voter-approved ranked choice voting law. The first proceeding, Opinion of the Justices, 2017 ME 100, was a rare “solemn occasion” in which the Supreme Court is asked to render an opinion where a proceeding has not been commenced but the issue is of special significance. In Opinion of the Justices, the Supreme Court held that ranked choice voting was unconstitutional under Maine’s constitution, but permitted ranked choice voting in primaries and federal elections to proceed. In Maine Senate v. Secretary of State, 2018 ME 52, the Supreme Court held that it could not decide the authority of the Secretary of State to implement ranked choice voting under a separation of powers theory.

Contact Verrill at (855) 307 0700