Representative Experience Archive
Amundsen Davis represents a state savings bank that engages in mortgage loan activities across the United States. We work closely with various state regulators for the client to become authorized to do business within each state and to maintain its good standing.
Amundsen Davis obtained a temporary restraining order on behalf of national information technology solutions company against a former sales representative who was actively contacting his former customer contacts on behalf of a competitor.
Amundsen Davis represented an ophthalmology start-up and its founder in a claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement and other theories. The claim stemmed from the former CEO’s resignation and formation of a new company seeking to exploit the client’s cutting edge glaucoma treatment and related business information disclosed to the CEO pursuant to NDA.
Amundsen Davis represents religious and non-profit institutions in sexual abuse claims. Our firm has assisted a client in managing a series of presuit claims, within its SIR. We also advised the client on coverage issues, and worked with the client’s carrier to effectively and efficiently resolve matters with the policy limits.
Amundsen Davis represented an architect in a 6-week AAA arbitration involving cost overruns, design errors, construction defects, and delay damages involving a premier hotel.
The owner of a large retail shopping center sued, alleging product liability and breach of warranty.
The jury deliberated for more than two days and the case settled during deliberation for much less than the plaintiff’s pre-trial demand.
Amundsen Davis obtained a favorable settlement in a premises liability case involving a fall at an outpatient medical clinic, which resulted in the exacerbation of the patient’s end stage renal disease due to acute trauma from the fall.
The jury found no negligence on the ER doctor.
Successfully settled matter involving death of plaintiff when she exited the elevator onto her floor where a fire was raging. The allegations centered on the building’s failure to have proper fire safety measures in place, including sprinklers, surveillance cameras, and other fire life safety measures required by the State of Illinois, but not by the City of Chicago.