Case Results

  • $34 Million
    Bad Faith Insurance
    After twenty years of arduous litigation, we just completed an interesting action. We had offered to settle a case for $2,000,000 at the time of a successful Ohio jury trial on the issue of liability and damages. A jury returned a $10,000,000 verdict. After an assignment of the causes of action, the subsequent bad faith insurance litigation resulted in a jury verdict of more than $15,000,000. With interest and attorney fees, more than $34,000,000 was finally recovered.
  • $30 Million
    Toxic Torts and Environmental Pollution

    In Kentucky, a jury returned a verdict of $218,000,000 for the intentional pollution of the property of class plaintiffs adjacent to a river.

    We just completed an environmental litigation case on behalf of a class that started in 1983. After the commencement of two trials, one on liability and damages, and the other on insurance company liability, this matter was finally resolved with a total recovery of more than $30,000,000.

  • $17.75 Million
    Serious Personal Injury

    We recovered in Oklahoma City on a jury verdict in the Federal District Court on behalf of an injured party in the sum of $17,750,000.

  • $7.85 Million
    Serious Personal Injury
    We recovered $7,850,000 in a personal injury, traffic accident case based upon a jury award.
  • $3.75 Million
    Class Action
    We recently recovered $3,750,000 on behalf of an employee who was injured by the intentional misconduct of his employer.
  • $3.2 Million
    Brain Injury
    A two-year-old boy suffered a severe brain injury when a rural hospital emergency room was unable to adequately provide him the medical care he needed. This lack of care left the boy in a chronic vegetative state. This tragic situation highlights the inadequacies in medical care that many rural Americans are faced with.
  • $2.6 Million
    Serious Personal Injury

    We recovered on a jury verdict against the manufacturer of an amusement park ride in the sum of $2,600,000.

  • $1.75 Million
    Wrongful Death

    We recently recovered jury verdicts against the railroad companies in the amount of $25,000,000; $10,000,000; $3,000,000; $4,900,000; $2,800,000; $1,875,000 and $2,000,000. A jury returned a punitive damage award in one of our railroad cases for $15,000,000.

    We recovered over $6,900,000 in a wrongful death case for a laborer.

    At the date scheduled for a jury trial in Federal District Court, we settled a wrongful death action last year for the entire policy limits, together with all net equity in a trucking company for $1,750,000.

  • Wrongful Death
    In July 2010, a twenty-six-year-old man was shot to death in his home in Ballville Township by two Sandusky County Sheriff's Deputies. The victim's parents brought a lawsuit, on the victim's behalf, against the deputies, the Sheriff, and Sandusky County. Recently, the federal district court judge concluded that the case should be heard by a jury. The jury will need to determine if the deputies and the Sheriff acted reasonably based upon the different facts that the parties to the case present. The case is entitled Jones v. Sandusky County, Ohio, Case No. 3:10-cv-2261, and is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Toledo, Ohio.
  • Settlement

    On or about July 22, 2013, two former employees of Windsor Mold brought this Action, in which they claimed Windsor violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Wage Fairness Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Ohio common law by failing to pay certain employees for wages and overtime owed. The plaintiffs sought recovery of statutory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief.

    Generally, the lawsuit concerns the Plaintiffs’ allegation that Windsor was legally obligated to compensate Press Operators and Decorators for a twenty-minute meeting prior to each shift and a twenty-minute break period for meals, but failed to pay for one of these twenty-minute periods. Windsor has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing, and denies any and all liability and damages to anyone with respect to the alleged fact or causes of action asserted in the Action. Since the time of filing, Windsor has made some payments to employees and former employees voluntarily and some payments pursuant to a Department of Labor Settlement. To avoid the burden, expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of the continued Action, however, the Parties have concluded it is in their best interests to resolve and settle the Action by entering into a settlement agreement.

     In December 2013 and April 2014, Windsor previously made checks available to Press Operators and Decorators for regular and overtime wages for shifts worked from July 22, 2010, through December 31, 2013. The payment made available in this settlement is in addition to the previous payments that you may have already received.

     On March 11, 2015, the Court certified a class for purposes of settlement and granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, subject to a fairness hearing, which will take place on August 20, 2015.

    All people who worked at Precision or Autoplas from July 22, 2007, through December 31, 2013, are eligible to be part of the settlement, regardless of if they joined the class action or not.  All people will receive a proportionate amount of the settlement funds based on the time worked.

    Below are links to important court documents concerning this settlement.  If you would like more information or help to file a claim, please contact Meredith Miller at the law firm of Murray & Murray, Co. L.P.A. at (419) 664-3711 or Contact Us.

  • Settlement
    Breach of Contract
    We completed litigation as lead counsel for a national class action and recovered tens of millions of dollars for insurance policy purchasers of life insurance who were victims of life insurance sales scams.  The life insurance company made false representations to the consumer in order to sell them ever-increasing premium policy charges.
  • Settlement
    Class Action
    Murray & Murray represents a proposed class of individuals who have been charged bogus fees by HomEq Servicing and had their payments applied to fees when they should have first been applied to interest, principal, and escrow items. The Ohio Supreme Court will answer the question: are mortgage servicers subject to the law in Ohio that protects consumers from deceptive acts and allows businesses to compete in a fair and transparent marketplace; or, are they exempt and free to treat Ohio consumers unfairly, deceptively and unconscionably? The case before the Ohio Supreme Court has entitled Anderson v. Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. d/b/a HomEq Servicing et al.
  • Settlement
    Class Action
    The Appellate Court upheld a Decision in the Ottawa County trial court allowing Mr. Pevets to pursue his claims against Crain Communications as a class action. Crain Communications publishes the magazine AutoWeek and distributes the magazine to its subscribers. Crain unilaterally changed the terms of the subscription and now only gives subscribers half of the number of magazines they paid for. The Sixth District Court of Appeals held that the claims against Crain for this conduct can go forward as a National Class Action.  Michael Pevets v. Crain Communications, Inc. Decision in Sixth Dist. Court of Appeals.
  • Settlement
    Class Action
    The Sixth District Court of Appeals has ruled-for a second time-that a class of individuals may proceed with litigation against Sprint for allowing "cramming" on its customer's local telephone bills. "Cramming" is the practice of placing unauthorized charges on a customer's local telephone account. "Crammers" take advantage of the fact that providers of local telephone services, such as Sprint, have opened their billing to third parties who can have their charges placed on the telephone bill. Murray & Murray represents a class of Sprint customers who are victims of crammers placing unauthorized charges on their local telephone accounts. The case is entitled Stammco, LLC v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio, Case No. 05CV000150.
  • Settlement
    Class Action
    We recently received an appellate court affirmation of class-action status for the recovery of damages for automobile repairs on the undercarriage due to a design flaw resulting in front end clip damages because of a defect in the bumper due to contact with curbs and curb stops.
  • Settlement
    Bad-Faith Insurance
    Our firm recently recovered for a single mother who was wrongfully denied insurance proceeds after her home was completely destroyed in a fire. The insurance company accused the homeowner of arson. Murray and Murray made claims for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. The firm was able to demonstrate that the insurance company did not have a reasonable basis for denying the claim and recovered proceeds in excess of the insurance policy.
  • Appeal

    Murray Sr. Argues at the Ohio Supreme Court - Case No. 2012-0169 Stammco, LLC, d.b.a. The Pop Shop, et al. v. United Telephone Company of Ohio, d.b.a. United Telephone Co., et al.

    Did Trial Court Err by Considering Merit Issues in Ruling That ‘Phone Cramming’ Lawsuit Cannot Be Pursued as Class Action?

    The suit alleges the phone company Sprint is negligent in verifying charges added to customers’ bills - Stammco, LLC, d.b.a. The Pop Shop, et al. v. United Telephone Company of Ohio, d.b.a. United Telephone Co., et al., Case no. 2012-0169

    Sixth District Court of Appeals (Fulton County)

    ISSUE: In denying class action certification of a civil lawsuit brought by multiple customers against a phone company, did the trial court err by basing its decision on an evaluation of the merits of claims asserted by the plaintiffs, rather than on the compliance or noncompliance of the proposed class definition with the criteria for class certification set forth in Ohio Civil Rule 23?

  • Appeal

    Charles M. Murray at the Court of Appeals of Ohio Sixth Appellate District Erie County Trial Court No. 2016-CV-0455

    In this case, three brothers owned a piece of property jointly after their mother passed away. One brother wanted to remove his brothers from access to the property shortly after. A settlement hearing to discuss how to parcel the land and the rights to use it was held, which ended in an oral settlement agreement, but nothing was written and signed. The appellants attempted to enforce the oral settlement agreement, but an evidentiary hearing found that it was unenforceable due to a “lack [of] definite terms” and that there was no “meeting of the minds” to create it. When that decision was reached, the case was further appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio Sixth Appellate District for Erie County. With the representation of Murray & Murray, the case succeeded in affirming the lower court’s denial, which has kept the oral agreement unenforceable. All costs associated with the appeal are to be paid by the opposing party.

  • Class Action

    Murray & Murray Wins in the Cincinnati Federal Court of Appeals for a 12 State Class Action against Fifth Third Bank for “Service” Fees Slapped on Small Business Checking Accounts

    Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A. has won the reversal of an earlier Columbus, Ohio federal district court decision, which had denied class certification for small businesses against a major regional bank, Fifth Third Bank.  Last week, the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that had denied certification of a proposed class of Fifth Third Bank business checking account holders that were charged improper “service” fees without providing notice, more than 15 days ahead of imposition.     

     The class action was originally filed by Murray & Murray on December 20, 2007, for approximately 300,000 business checking account customers who were charged non-timely preidentified “service” fees, and that many “service” fees were increased, also without the prior 15 day notification period.  As one example, a “service” fee, which Fifth Third called a “Deposit Adjustment”, was improperly deducted from account balances, for allegedly not adding up their deposits correctly, in a total amount estimated to be in excess of $5 million dollars.  Fifth Third is an Ohio bank that conducts business in the following twelve states: Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.  The proposed class is represented by Murray & Murray of Sandusky, Ohio, and Arlington Video Productions, Inc., a small business from Columbus, Ohio.

  • Settlement
    Commercial

    In a contract action, we recovered in excess of $20,000,000 for a shareholder.

    We successfully maintained ERISA litigation against a medical insurer on behalf of the class of individuals and recovered in 1999, more than $13,000,000 as a result of wrongful discounting practices.

    We participated in the recovery of over $20,000,000 on behalf of borrowers using automobiles for collateral from a major automobile manufacturing company.

    We recently recovered over $4,000,000 for a class of a group of executives who contended that the company met the target for certain incentive compensation. The case turned on the resolution of a series of complex accounting issues.

    A jury recently returned a $5,000,000 punitive damage award against a major automobile manufacturer for abusing the borrower's rights.

    In cases against banks, we recently recovered over $25,000,000 for borrowers in one case, and we recovered in excess of $2,500,000 from a bond indenture trustee for failure to monitor a construction project jeopardizing the value of the bonds.

    Recently we recovered against a polluter and its insurance company for temporary fouling of a beach, in the approximate sum of $2,000,000.

  • Settlement
    Consumer Protection
    We recently participated in a national class action settlement for cellular telephone subscribers who had fixed-rate contracts which the company sought to avoid.

    We have been successful in litigation for cramming by a telephone company as to unauthorized third-party charges.  The cellular phone company was adding unauthorized cell phone charges to customers' bills.  These bogus charges resulted in phony telephone bills.

    We have successfully defended motion practice as to a national bank's charges to customer checking accounts.
  • Settlement
    Food Borne Illness
    We successfully worked with nationally recognized counsel in a botulism case on behalf of an Ohio client who was sickened by canned food.  The manufacturer recalled the product several weeks after our client fell ill, so it was too late to administer an anti-toxin otherwise available from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  As a result of the delay in the recall, this individual continues to suffer from the effects of the poison.  We were able to identify the specific neuro-muscular test that identified the long-term effects of the poison, which was not detected by physical examination.
  • Medical Malpractice
    This case involves a hospital and their collection agency who is fraudulently seeking to collect the full retail rate for the medical treatment a patient received at the hospital even when a contract required the hospital to bill the patient's medical insurance company at a lower, negotiated rate. The federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio agreed with Murray & Murray that this case should remain in state court. This ruling prevents the hospital and its collection agency from using the court system to advance their agenda. Instead, because the hospital and the collection agency were using the state courts to collect from patients, they must remain in the same forum for this action. The case is pending in the Huron County Court of Common Pleas and is entitled Bellevue Hospital v. Peterson, Case No. CVH20110572.
  • Settlement
    Medical Negligence
    Our client underwent surgery for what was considered a routine and elective procedure.  But an error by the pharmacy at the hospital led to the wrong product being used.  As a result of the malpractice by the pharmacy technician, the patient suffered permanent injury.  We were able to prove that a software system and a programming error caused the technician to incorrectly believe the product she chose was a generically equivalent.  The hospital agreed to compensate our client for a significant loss.
  • Settlement
    Motorcycle Accident
    The construction company responsible for setting up a work zone on a highway entrance ramp agreed to settle a negligence lawsuit with a motorcyclist who was severely injured when attempting to merge onto the highway. The improperly set up work zone results in a four-inch lip on the surface of the roadway that caused the motorcyclist's injuries. The settlement funds will provide the motorcyclist the support he needs to deal with permanent head trauma suffered as a result of the construction company's negligence. The attorneys at Murray & Murray have the experience and skill necessary to protect the interests of those who have been injured as a result of improper and negligent road construction.
  • Settlement
    Nursing Home Abuse
    Murray and Murray recently obtained a substantial recovery for several families whose loved ones were sexually abused while residents of a nursing home. The nursing home claimed it was not aware of any past issues with the employee who committed the assaults. Murray and Murray uncovered evidence that the perpetrator had engaged in similar conduct in the past and demonstrated that the nursing home should have implemented policies to prevent such abuse.
  • Settlement
    Securities- Stocks, Bonds, etc.

    We have successfully recovered in many security class action cases on behalf of a class of plaintiffs, including going-private transactions of approximately $6,000,000 and of $3,350,000; for penny security violations in the amount of $1,400,000; for proxy fraud in the amount of $5,700,000.

    We participated in a recovery of more than $600,000,000 on behalf of shareholders in a security buyout case.

Contact Us

Speak With A Murray Today
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.