 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fraud,Misrepresentation/Conspiracy Azar & Azar represented eight plaintiffs in a series of fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy lawsuits. The cases were based upon a scheme by the defendants to induce the plaintiffs to purchase pay telephones which were to be set up in certain locations. This was supposed to result in a large return of revenue on plaintiffs investments. It was developed at trial that the whole program was a fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (Montgomery, Alabama) and the jury returned separate verdicts for each of the eight plaintiffs in the amount of $3,500,000.00 punitive damages in each case. The jury returned various amounts of compensatory damages for each plaintiff.
Flat v. CMB Foods: $2,000,000.00 verdict. This was a death case. The deceased was a construction worker who was working along the edge of U.S. Highway I-85, Montgomery County, Alabama. The plaintiff was struck by an on-coming vehicle. Defendants contended, and had an eye-witness, who testified plaintiff was standing in the middle of the highway at the time he was struck. The accident occurred approximately at Plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the jury, that plaintiff was actually standing on the shoulder of the highway next to a vehicle. Forensic evidence demonstrated that the right rear view mirror of the offending truck, in fact, struck and left an imprint on the left side of plaintiff’s face. The rear view mirror also struck the left rear view mirror of the truck parked on the shoulder of the road. The indenture marks on both rear view mirrors was sufficient to satisfy the jury that the plaintiff was standing on the shoulder of the road at the time he was struck by the defendant’s vehicle. The case was tried to a verdict and the jury awarded $2,000,000.00 to the plaintiff. CMB Foods, defendant, only had $1,000,000.00 insurance coverage. Efforts had been made to settle within the policy limits of CMB Foods insurance policy. The offer was declined and a claim was paid by plaintiff against the insurance company for the $1,000,000.00 excess verdict. The case was settled with the insurance company for CMB Foods paying the full $2,000,000.00 verdict.
Williams v. Wigfall, Tenneco: $387,000.00 verdict. Plaintiff was injured while making a repair to his radiator hose on the premises of a Tenneco filling station. Plaintiff suffered a partial loss of his leg, when the leg was crushed between two motor vehicles. Plaintiff contended the premises of Tenneco was unsafe because the marking for parked cars was inadequate. Plaintiff contended that Tenneco should have known vehicles would park near a concession stand for the purpose of obtaining food items and this would create a dangerous situation to other vehicles on the premises. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $387,000.00.
McBee v. Brunos: $600,000.00 jury verdict. ($200,000.00 compensatory damages and $400,000.00 punitive damages.) Plaintiff slipped in Bruno’s supermarket. The floor was being waxed and cleaned and Plaintiff contended no markers were in place to alert customers of danger. Plaintiff suffered a broken wrist. Plaintiff presented evidence of a similar fall within 30 days and contended Bruno’s was guilty of wanton conduct. Jury verdict was returned in the amount of $200,000.00 compensatory damages and $400,000.00 punitive damages. Rucker v. Service Master: In this case, water was on the floor of a hospital without adequate warnings.The plaintiff slipped on the water, fell and was seriously injured. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $500,000.00. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Montgomery County, Alabama. The verdict was upheld on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Davis v. National Car Rental: This was a claim for workers compensation. The court awarded permanent and total disability. The employee had a part-time job which the court determined was uncertain and did not represent the ability of the Plaintiff to earn compensation in the future. The court accepted Plaintiff’s position that the part-time job was of a protective nature and given to Plaintiff because of the friendship with employer and was not certain enough to establish a true earning capacity for the Plaintiff. The case was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, 628 So. 2d 722. Sampley v. Integrity Insurance Company: This case involved a claim by Sampley Integrity Insurance Company owed him a defense in an automobile accident. Integrity paid their limits into court and declined to further defend. Supreme Court of Alabama entered an opinion determining that an insurance company has two obligations, i.e., one to defend the action and the other to pay judgment, if coverage provided for payment. Alabama Supreme Court, 476 So. 2d 79. Libel/Slander/Malicious
Prosecution DeBardelaben
v. DeBardelaben:
This was a claim for libel
and slander against the ex-wife and her father. The verdict was
returned in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $140,000.00. The
case was upheld on appeal and the verdict was paid in full including
interest. This is one of the largest libel and slander verdicts in _ Nolen v. NeSmith: This was a claim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff contended that she had been falsely accused of misappropriating money. The matter was investigated by the City police and presented to the grand jury. A no bill was returned and suit was filed by Plaintiff. Case was settled in the middle of trial against some of the defendants on a pro tanto basis upon payment of $300,000.00. Municipal/Civil
Rights Defense
Hancock
v. City of Montgomery:
$5,000,000.00 Automobile
accident successfully defended. Plaintiff contended City of _
Cottrell
v. Caldwell:
This was a civil rights
action brought on behalf of the deceased. The deceased had been
arrested by police officers. He was placed in the back of the police
car for transportation to jail. He died from positional asphyxiation
and suit was filed against the City of _
Brook
v. City of Montgomery:
This was a claim of age
discrimination. Plaintiff contended employees for the City of
|
|
|
In the 57 years the firm has been practicing, we have closed thousands and thousands of real estate transactions, including various types of commercial real estate transactions as well as residential loans and refinancing. The firm has been involved in a variety of commercial transactions including sale and purchases of motels; commercial buildings; subdivision development; real estate contracts pertaining to construction, financing, and developing commercial buildings. Azar & Azar, L.L.C., is recognized as one of the premier real estate firms. We have represented various title insurance companies in the writing and providing title insurance. The firm is presently an agent for the writing of title insurance with Southern Title Insurance Company. The firm has
been involved in and has litigated adverse possession claims and a
substantial amount of litigation involving eminent domain or
condemnation of property for road way construction. The firm handled
the eminent domain/condemnation of the right of way for Interstate
I-85 through a major portion of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. The
firm is presently handling substantial eminent domain/condemnation
cases for the State of Alabama in obtaining the right of way for the
construction of the outer loop presently under construction in the
eastern portion of the City of Montgomery.
|
|
|
Azar & Azar has handled
substantial municipal annexations of land on behalf of the City of
Montgomery, Alabama. The firm is presently handling municipal
annexations for the City of Wetumpka, Alabama. Azar & Azar
defended the court challenge to
the major annexation of 4600
acres of land in the eastern border of the City of
Montgomery. This annexation was challenged in court and resulted in
extensive litigation before the annexation obtained final approval.
The firm handled pre-clearance with the United States Justice
Department in Washington D.C. of the annexed property involving the
redistricting of the area annexed and the establishment of voting
precincts. The firm was successful in obtaining clearance by the
United States Justice Department of this substantial annexation for
the City of Montgomery, and pre-clearance of new voting precincts. At the present time, Azar & Azar, along with Tim McCollum City Attorney is defending an annexation by the City of Wetumpka, Alabama. The annexation has been challenged in the Circuit Court for Elmore County, Alabama. Litigation has been completed at the Circuit Court level with a favorable result to the City of Wetumpka, Alabama. The ruling of the Circuit Court is subject to appeal and the entire annexation is still pending
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery, Alabama 36106