Source: http://lawcfl.com/practice-areas/products-liability-warranty-and-lemon-law-defense
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:49:06+00:00

Document:
Conti Fenn & Lawrence represents manufacturers and distributors in the defense of products liability claims. The firm defends companies that make and sell products from claims ranging from economic harms caused by an alleged breach of warranty to personal injury claims caused by a product that was alleged to have been defective designed or manufactured.
The firm currently represents several automotive manufacturers in warranty and lemon law defense in both State and Federal actions in the State of Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Outside of the automotive warranty defense arena, the firm handles toxic tort claims, breach of warranty claims, subrogation claims involving products liability matters, and premise liability matters that often have a product liability component. Products that the firm’s attorneys have defended span a wide range, including motor vehicles, forklifts, elevators, escalators, revolving doors, barrier entry systems, oil tanks, cellular phones, motor homes, tractor trailers, glassware, asbestos and a variety of both consumer and commercial products. Other representative clients of the firm in these areas include Snap-On, Value City Furniture, Fleetwood Enterprises, Walker Oil, and Tokio Marine Insurance.
The firm regularly defends General Motors, Chrysler, Honda, Mazda, and several other automotive manufacturers, handling the defense of 50-75 new warranty and lemon law matters annually in courts throughout Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Evans v. General Motors Corp., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 459 F.Supp.2d (D.Md. 2006).
Ford Motor Company v. General Accident Insurance Company, 365 Md. 321, 779 A.2d 362 (2001). Seminal breach of warranty decision in Maryland. Mr. Conti co-drafted the Amicus Brief on behalf of the Products Liability Advisory Counsel, Inc.
In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation, 216 F.Supp.2d 474 (D.Md. 2002). Decision denying Plaintiff’s attempt to remand case to State Court on Preemption Grounds. Co-counsel in Multi-District Litigation.
Christopher Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F.Supp.2d 769 (D.Md. 2002). Daubert decision excluding Plaintiff’s experts in cellular phone brain cancer action. Co-counsel for lead defendant, Motorola, Inc.
Martin v. Chrysler Group, LLC, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 2013 WL 5308245 (W.D.Va.) (Unpublished Decision).
Sharp v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., United States District Court for the District of Maryland, 2009 WL 4061761 (D.Md. 2009) (Unpublished Decision). Dismissing action for Plaintiff’s delays in service of complaint on defendant.
Tom Hickey v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Case No. 04-3324 (D.Md. 2005) (Unpublished Decision). Memorandum opinion granting manufacturer summary judgment on lemon law, consumer protection act, and Magnuson Moss claims.
leads products liability defense and labor and employment litigation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.