Caddell & Chapman Menu

Tag Archives | Case Results

Ford

Ford 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine Class Action

Caddell & Chapman served as lead counsel in In re Navistar Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation, an MDL proceeding (Case No. MDL-2223) consolidating some 35 cases from around the country against Ford in the Northern District of Illinois federal court in Chicago. The case involved defective diesel engines used by Ford in certain model pickup trucks and vans. Caddell & Chapman attorneys Michael Caddell and Cynthia Chapman, and their co‑counsel, negotiated a settlement package …

Continue Reading
Da Vita

Whistleblower Recovery

As lead counsel in a qui tam lawsuit, Caddell & Chapman recovered $55 million paid to the United States Government and a confidential amount for attorneys’ fees in health care fraud litigation against Da Vita, one of the nation’s largest dialysis treatment providers. During the course of the case, Caddell & Chapman took more than 40 depositions, reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, briefed dozens of motions—from discovery to four dispositive motions—and handled …

Continue Reading
Caddell & Chapman represents plaintiffs nationwide in class actions and other complex litigation.

Construction Defect Litigation

Caddell & Chapman resolved part of a major construction defect case involving an $85 million, 30‑story condominium tower on South Padre Island in Texas. The tower, having suffered extreme differential settlement during its construction, will be imploded in December 2009. Representing the owner, Caddell & Chapman successfully addressed multi‑party claims and obtained a confidential settlement on a significant portion of the case, following which there was a release of the bank liens on the property. …

Continue Reading
Hartford

Hartford Insurance Class Action

Caddell & Chapman served as the sole lead counsel of a nationwide class of more than 100,000 insureds in an insurance class action lawsuit against Hartford and related insurance companies involving alleged systematic underpayment of their homeowner’s claims. The alleged underpayment was the result of Hartford, and related insurance companies, neglecting to include a payment for general contractor’s overhead and profit as part of the up‑front “actual cash value” payment made to insureds after the …

Continue Reading