Case Results

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.