Action: Wrongful death Injuries alleged: Wrongful death and survival action Case name: Withheld Court/case no.: Chester County Common Pleas / 2021-CP-12-00490 Judge: Brian M. Gibbons Demand: $1 million Highest offer: $1 million Amount: $1 million Date: Aug. 29, 2023 Most helpful expert: Mel Tucker Attorneys: Christopher R. Hart of Hart Law, Columbia (for the plaintiff) Insurance company: Auto Owners Insurance Co. Decedent was visiting friends and family at an apartment complex when he was fatally shot. He was not the intended target of the shooting but was killed when the shooter fired into a small crowd of people. The apartment complex did not have armed security, basic lighting, or security gates or cameras to protect tenants and guests. The out-of-state owners failed to take corrective actions after receiving hundreds of complaints of violent crime on the property. FOIA fees paid for crime reports soared to several thousand of dollars, and it took several months to produce all of the crime reports. Depositions for the complex’s owners were scheduled but proved unnecessary after they were presented with the risks associated with a protracted legal battle.

Action: Infringement Injuries alleged: Patent infringement with trade dress allegations Case name: GeigTech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Inc. Court/case no.: U.S. Southern District of New York / 18 civ 5290 Judge: Colleen McMahon Amount: $34.6 million Date: March 15, 2024 Most helpful expert: Douglas Kim, patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville Attorneys: Gary Sorden of Cole Schotz, Dallas (for the plaintiff); Scott W. Breedlove of Carter Arnett, Dallas (for the defendant) GeigTech East Bay, a South Carolina company that makes modern window shades, obtained U.S. Patent No. 10,294,717, for a "shade bracket with concealed wiring" on May 21, 2019. The patent was originally filed by Richard J. McKenna of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, and obtained by Douglas Kim, a registered patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville. GeigTech filed a federal patent infringement complaint with trade dress allegations against Lutron Electronics Co. Inc. One of the tactics Lutron used to try to invalidate the patent. However, the patent written by Kim withstood two challenges in the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a jury trial. On March 12, the jury returned a verdict stating that Lutron had infringed on GeigTech’s patent and awarded $34.6 in damages. According to the jury verdict form, “Lutron opted to poach (GeigTech’s) patented designs and intellectual property to try and remain competitive in a segment of the market that (GeigTech) cornered.” As the finding of infringement was willful, GeigTech can ask the judge to triple the damages.

Action: Breach of contract and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act Injuries alleged: Breach of contract, unfair trade practice act, breach of warranty Case name: HHBC Inc. v. Jamis Bicycles Court/case no.: Beaufort County Common Pleas / 2021-CP-07-00143 Judge: Bobby Bonds Injuries alleged: $1.03 million (subject to tripling and addition of attorney’s fees to an estimated $4.5 million) Date: March 19, 2024 Most helpful expert: George Durant, CPA, Columbia Attorneys: Ashley Twombley and Thomas Iandoli of Twenge + Twombley, Beaufort (for the defendant); John Bowen of Laughlin & Bowen, Hilton Head (for the plaintiff) In 2021, plaintiff Hilton Head Bicycle Co. sued Jamis Bicycle Corp., alleging defendant breached a bicycle supply contract and caused plaintiff more than $1 million in damages. Plaintiff further alleged that the manner in which defendant breached the contract violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, allowing plaintiff to seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. The total exposure was estimated to be $4.5 million. A central issue at trial involved the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain, and whether these effects excused defendant from the alleged breach. This is one of the few known jury verdicts dealing with the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 and the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code’s “commercial impracticably” provisions. Another central issue involved plaintiff's alleged damages, which were ultimately limited by the trial court judge before being presented to the jury. When plaintiff’s damages were presented to the jury, defendant alleged plaintiff’s damages claims were not supported by sufficient documentation (a calculation methodology, receipts, invoices, etc.) and amounted to little more than a homemade list of numbers set forth on a single sheet of paper. In closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel Ashley Twombley argued, “My children have prepared Christmas list with more detail than this wish list prepared by .” After a six-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant, concluding it did not breach the contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.