|
Today, federal, state, and local laws strive to protect
consumers by regulating everything from the soundness
of financial institutions to the proper handling of
meat. When things go wrong, these are the laws we appeal
to on our clients’ behalf. However, the complexity
and variety of these laws make this a challenging area
of litigation. As an added complication, in many cases
the injury to consumers (usually monetary) involves
fraud on the part of a major corporation.
The lawyers of Golomb & Honik are recognized as
leaders in consumer protection lawsuits. We have succeeded
even in the face of large, well-financed, combative
defendants. Here are some examples:
- Golomb
& Honik represented current and former students who
sued a national vocational school, alleging that they
had been fraudulently misled as to the education they
would receive. Golomb & Honik served as co-lead counsel
in this groundbreaking consumer class action, in which
plaintiffs and absent national class members sought
education from a publicly traded corporation in the
field of diagnostic medical sonography. Golomb & Honik
succeeded in demonstrating the chain of schools fraudulently
misrepresented the nature of the ultrasound program
and otherwise failed to provide the education represented.
Students received federally guaranteed student loans
but were largely unable to obtain promised jobs in
their area of study. The school had no meaningful
admissions criteria and often hired unqualified administrative
and educational personnel. Field placements did not
materialize, and students were unprepared to take
qualifying exams. Students were stuck with loan repayments
for which they received little or nothing in return.
In approving certification of the class, and later
the class settlement, the United States District Court
said of counsel representing plaintiffs that "[t]he
skill of each of these attorneys is reflected both
in settlement and in the aggressive manner in which
they pursued this litigation from start to finish."
197 F.R.D. at 149. The Court noted in conclusion,
"the highly skilled class counsel provided excellent
representation both for named plaintiffs and absent
class members." Id. The class settlement of $7.3 million
was the largest common fund of its kind.
-
After a man was rendered a paraplegic in a motor vehicle
accident, he required extensive medical care on both
an in-patient and outpatient basis. At a certain point
in his recovery, he was home and receiving physical
therapy on a daily basis; his rehabilitation specialist
prescribed outpatient physical therapy at the rehabilitation
hospital where he had spent months as a patient. The
outpatient physical therapy would allow him to transfer
himself from his bed to a wheelchair and, ultimately,
teach him how to drive a specially equipped van so
that he could be self-sufficient. His insuring HMO,
while agreeing to pay for the outpatient physical
therapy, refused to pay for the transportation services
to and from that therapy, and paratransit service
was unavailable. The HMO's refusal to pay for the
transportation for outpatient services essentially
left the patient alone at home without treatment.
As a result, he suffered extensive bedsores and required
hospitalization on five separate occasions. Bad faith
litigation was instituted against the HMO by Golomb
& Honik attorneys, who overcame preliminary objections
and motions to dismiss based on various "HMO immunity"
statutes. During the course of discovery, it was clearly
determined that the HMO administrators who denied
the claim did so in bad faith by misapplying their
own policy language. Upon completion of depositions,
the case settled for $1 million.
- A man parked
his car across the street from a Philadelphia market
and went food shopping. He returned just in time to
see a thief starting to drive his car away. The man
approached the vehicle and was hit, receiving serious
injuries that left him disabled. Since the vehicle
was stolen, he was not covered by liability insurance,
so an uninsured motorist claim was made on his behalf.
The insurance company denied coverage, citing a policy
provision that did not allow for coverage under its
own definition of an "uninsured motor vehicle." A
declaratory judgment action was filed to determine
coverage, and the Federal Court found in the plaintiff's
favor, allowing him the opportunity to recover $500,000
in uninsured motorist benefits. In accepting the arguments
made by Golomb & Honik lawyers, the court stated that
the exclusion relied upon by the insurance company
was "contrary to a clearly expressed public policy....
[E]nforcement of the exclusion would result in a premium-paying,
fully insured driver being denied coverage for his
injuries."
|
