ILNews

Products Liability/Negligence

July 19, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Jonathan M. Hinsey v.  Better Built Dry Kilns, Inc. and DeNardi, s.r.l., a/k/a Nardi Group and Nardi Partecipazioni, s.r.l.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, No. 1:08-CV-0114

Injuries: Third-degree burns over 40 percent of body

Date: to be tried in 2010

Disposition: Settled for policy limits of $1 million prior to mediation

Plaintiff Attorney: Cory Brundage, Cory Brundage LLC, Indianapolis

Defendant Attorney: Matthew Shipman, Bloom Gates Sigler & Whiteleather, Columbia City

Insurance: American Resources Insurance Co.,

Case Information: Plaintiff fell into a pit of superheated water built into the floor of a lumber steamer, sustaining burns to his feet, legs, abdomen, and arms.
The steamer was manufactured by Nardi, an Italian manufacturer and sold to plaintiff’s employer by Better Dry Kilns, which assisted in the construction. Service could not be obtained on the Italian company, which had gone bankrupt, making Better Built liable as the manufacturer under Indiana’s products liability statute.

Strategic challenges included potential fault allocations against Nardi, the plaintiff’s employer, and the plaintiff, all of which would be uncollectible and an enormous workmen’s compensation lien for disability and medical payments. Ultimately, Better Built’s carrier paid plaintiff’s policy limits demand of $1 million, and the lien holder accepted a drastic reduction to 16 percent of its total lien. Defendant’s attorney Matthew Shipman was professional in his handling of the matter and cooperated with plaintiff’s attorney to create a structured settlement that will pay benefits to the plaintiff for life.
Cory Brundage

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT