Dina is an aggressive yet civil trial lawyer who focuses her practice on drug and medical device/product liability defense, professional liability defense, consumer class action defense, insurance coverage, and insurance bad faith defense litigation. Dina has tried numerous jury trials in state and federal courts and has been involved in a wide number of appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Since 1995, Dina has represented pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers in mass tort litigation, multi-district litigation, and individual lawsuits. She served as local co-defense counsel in hundreds of lawsuits involving silicone breast implants. From 1995 to 2000, she defended numerous orthopedic bone screw cases that were part of multi-district litigation. In that litigation, Dina was successful in helping her client win several summary judgment awards. Dina also served on the defense team for blood plasma product manufacturers in AIDS/hemophiliac litigation, and she helped to favorably resolve multiple lawsuits in state and federal court against a pain pump manufacturing client. Dina also defends lawyers, law firms, and other professional clients against claims of malpractice. In the last several years, Dina has defended legal malpractice lawsuits with damage claims ranging from $16 million in one and $100 million in another. At the behest of malpractice carriers such as Firemen’s Fund, Great American, Minnesota Lawyers Mutual, The Bar Plan, AIG, and General Star, Dina has represented clients ranging from solo practitioners to some of the largest firms in Indianapolis. Dina has utilized or deposed some of the preeminent experts in legal malpractice and legal ethics. Dina has defended lawyers in a diverse array of substantive areas, including estate planning; wills and trusts; criminal defense; corporate law; family law; business transactions such as stock sales, asset sales, and mergers; medical malpractice; and, personal injury. The range of litigation topics Dina has successfully tackled includes: conflicts of interest; the scope of the duty owed to non-clients; the lack of any legal duty; whether an attorney-client relationship exists; claims of actual and constructive fraud; whether professional rule violations provide a basis for legal malpractice claims; and, the alleged failure to define the scope of the engagement, to name a few. Most importantly, Dina is passionate about defending the profession. Dina works hard to mount an aggressive, thorough defense on behalf of all of her professional clients. The results she has obtained, and the friends she has made in the legal community, are the greatest rewards for this hard work.
Significant Legal Malpractice Case — Beneficiaries of a high-profile, $180 million estate asserted a complex, eight-count complaint against a very reputable Indiana law firm and eighteen attorneys in their individual capacities. Dina’s defense team was able to garner immediate dismissal of five out of eight counts of the complaint on initial motions practice. The beneficiaries then amended their complaint alleging claims of negligence, “intermeddling,” and legal malpractice. Dina’s team was able to get the remaining claims dismissed by
arguing that the beneficiaries lacked standing, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims, the beneficiaries were not real parties in interest, and the amended complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted the defense motions to dismiss with prejudice in favor of all of Dina’s attorney clients. The beneficiaries exhausted all appeal efforts which Dina and her team successfully resisted at every level.
Signiificant Bad Faith Case — Defended $45 million claim of bad faith against insurer resulting in settlement for a fraction of demand. In defending this complex case, Dina led and collaborated with a team of lawyers and law firms pursuing interdependent actions for coverage, breach of contract, and fraud which directly led to successful settlement. Pending for more than seven years, Dina managed this extremely document-intensive case by utilizing the latest technology to implement document management software and digital
communication features such as document share and remote database hosting to reduce travel expense and the expense associated with paper copies. Throughout the course of the case, Dina and her team litigated multiple issues, including choice of law, disqualification of counsel as necessary witnesses,
agency duties and negligence, third-party beneficiary of insurance contract theories, insurance contract reformation, and numerous privilege issues impacting the joint interest privilege, the insurer-insured privilege, as well as attorney-client privilege and work product protections implicated in insurance claim files, coverage counsel files and sensitive company financial information. Dina’s team also worked with several nationally recognized insurance experts in the areas of claims handling, underwriting, bad faith
and insurance defense counsel ethics and professional responsibility.
Significant Consumer Class Action Case — Obtained summary judgment and order denying class certification on behalf of the nation’s largest telecommunications billing clearinghouse in alleged cramming (i.e., unauthorized telephone billing) putative class action. After oral argument to the Seventh Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s rulings that plaintiff’s authorization of disputed charges on its phone bill precluded its claims of unjust enrichment and statutory deception, and that individual issues surrounding each customer’s transaction
precluded class certification. The Seventh Circuit also agreed that an alleged violation of Indiana’s anti-cramming regulation could not serve as the factual predicate for class action claims because the regulation does not apply to billing clearinghouses. This opinion has had significant industry impact as one of the first published appellate opinions addressing class action cramming allegations and the application of state anti-cramming regulations.