Source: https://www.wmrdefense.com/content/services
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:31:42+00:00

Document:
We are an insurance defense firm that focuses on litigation. Our office is centrally located in Lexington, which allows us to handle cases in any venue throughout the state of Kentucky. Most importantly, we are committed to meeting the needs of our clients. Whether the case is one that can or should be resolved early, or whether the case must be defended through trial and beyond, we have the insight, skill, and experience to obtain a favorable outcome. Our results speak for themselves.
WMR Defense understands that you have the ability to choose your legal counsel. That choice typically revolves around two main issues: the need to have high quality legal representation and the need for your legal counsel to resolve the matter efficiently. WMR Defense understands those needs and actively strives to meet those needs for every client on every case.
Our legal team has a long history of being effective advocates for our clients. A huge part of being an effective advocate comes from knowing what it takes to successfully litigate a case from beginning to end. By knowing how to navigate that process, we can present solid strategies for resolving the cases that need to be resolved as early as possible.
While some cases will invariably go to trial, the reality is that most cases can be amicably resolved. That is why we focus on finding a path for resolving the cases that need to be resolved as early as possible. By creating a path for resolving a case in the early stages of its life, we are able to resolve each case at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. This allows us to resolve your case quicker and to be more cost-efficient during this process.
Sometimes cases can only resolve with the help of a jury. In those cases, because of the conscious, calculated planning done early on by WMR Defense’s attorneys, we are able to easily try your case. Simply put, our planning to resolve your case has prepared us to win your case.
Likewise, we have the experience, knowledge, and skill to win your case. Our attorneys have substantial trial experience that has historically resulted in favorable verdicts for our clients. Our practice incorporates cutting edge technology with strong advocacy, to create a clear, seamless presentation that is always well-received by the jury.
We represented one of the largest pork producers in the nation in a class action lawsuit. We played a key role in dismissing the majority of Plaintiffs' complaints and, in turn, decertifying the class, thereby significantly limiting its client’s possible exposure. Powell v. Tosh, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32229 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2013); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32231 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2013); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120448 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
After Mr. Walters and Mrs. Richardson obtained a defense verdict in favor of the defendant boater at trial in Fayette Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court did not err in failing to direct a verdict in favor of Plaintiff because the evidence supported a verdict in favor of Defendant where it permitted the jury to conclude that Defendant consistently maintained a proper lookout but Plaintiff failed to do so. As such, the Trial Court did not err in refusing to conclude as a matter of law that Defendant acted negligently or breached his duty to keep a proper lookout. Kelley v. Poore, 328 S.W.3d 683 (Ky. App 2009).
In a Letcher Circuit Court Class Action, WMR represented a petroleum distributor that successfully achieved summary judgment (currently pending appeal), in favor of the distributor on a claim that the producer had contaminated the Whitesburg, Kentucky, water supply. Reynolds et. Al. v. Childers Oil, 2012 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 386.
Mr. Walters obtained a defense verdict at trial for an employer and employee in an action arising out of an automobile accident. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of the Fayette Circuit Court, finding that the employee was not liable to the Plaintiff based on the doctrine of sudden emergency when brakes on the employer's truck did not work properly, forcing the employee to swerve and cross the center lane of traffic, and thereby hitting the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Trial Court gave the jury a sudden emergency instruction. The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an instruction on sudden emergency. Bailey v. MCM Bus. Servs., 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 73, 1, 2009 WL 1562848.
Mrs. Richardson obtained a unanimous defense verdict in Jefferson Circuit Court in 2012, which was upheld by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in a case that was premised on a contract that the Plaintiff claimed was formed by the Defendant by virtue of the fact that he purchased a building permit that permitted a separate contractor to perform work on Plaintiff's commercial property. Jones v. Topf Ceramic Tile, 2012 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 930.
Coy Turner was operating a grain truck for his employer. As he drove, the truck's left front wheel fell off. Turner lost control and struck an oncoming Jeep Cherokee driven by Barbara Smith. Smith sued Turner and his employer for more than $1.6 million. Melissa Thompson Richardson represented the defense, asserting that the wheel's falling off constituted a sudden emergency. The defense also implicated Smith's failure to wear a seat belt, and an expert for the defense testified that Smith could have avoided the accident had she been more attentive. Finally, Smith's damages were diminished by the defense's neurosurgery expert, who opined that Smith's complaints had a somatic component and that she could return to work. The jury returned a verdict for the defense, and Smith took $0. Smith v. Turner et al, Adair Circuit Court, 08-CI-0083.
Mr. Walters represented Mr. Sexton in a case that found a civil defendant in Kentucky had the right to choose the physician who will examine the plaintiff. The Judge in the underlying case ordered that the Court would choose a physician to perform a medical examination on the Plaintiff, as opposed to allowing the Defendant to make that choice. Mr. Walters appealed the Judge's decision directly to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing that the Trial Judge did not have the authority to choose the examining physician on behalf of the defendant. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed, and concluded that the Defendant and his counsel had sole discretion to select a physician. The decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals' decision was published. Richard S. Sexton v. Stephen L. Bates, Judge, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 41 S.W.3d 452 (2001).

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