Michael J. Cohen

784 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. 2010); A complex environmental insurance coverage action in which the client, a nationally renown liability insurer, obtained summary judgment in its favor, with such decision being affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals and then, on other grounds, by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In doing so, Attorneys Michael Cohen and Thomas Hruz convinced the Minnesota Supreme Court to overrule a 43-year-old precedent and create new law on contribution rights between insurers as to their duty to defend an insured, all in a manner favorable to our client and insurers generally.

2009 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 977 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009),rev. denied 2009 Minn. LEXIS 834 (Minn. 2009); Northern States Power Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2011 WI App 136, 337 Wis. 2d 427, 805 N.W.2d 734, rev. denied 2012 WI 2. A complex environmental insurance coverage action in which the firm’s clients, two excess insurance carriers, obtained a favorable ruling on venue of the action in Minnesota and Minnesota choice of law and subsequently obtained summary judgment on allocation of damages and justiciability. Cohen and his colleagues were also successful in obtaining a critical stay of the parallel Wisconsin action while the Minnesota action proceeded. The Minnesota District Court’s decisions were affirmed on appeal, and the insured’s petition for review to the Minnesota Supreme Court was denied. The Wisconsin circuit court then gave full-faith and credit to the Minnesota District Court’s holdings and dismissed the parallel Wisconsin action. The Wisconsin circuit court’s decisions were affirmed on appeal and the insured’s petition for review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court was denied.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2005-2008); A multi-million dollar breach of contract action by our client, an individual sales representative whose contract with a major, national medical device company was summarily and without legitimate cause terminated. The case settled soon after our client obtained a number of very favorable court rulings immediately prior to trial, including a ruling rejecting a Daubert challenge to our client’s damages expert while disqualifying the defendant’s corresponding expert.

2004 WI 97, 274 Wis. 2d 143, 682 N.W.2d 389; Our client, one of the nation's largest industrial sand suppliers, was sued by a foundry worker with silicosis claiming strict liability for allegedly producing an unreasonably dangerous product. Cohen and his colleagues obtained a directed verdict after two weeks of trial. The directed verdict was upheld by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held that sand in its raw form was not an unreasonably dangerous product as a matter of law, effectively creating legal immunity for our client.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2003). An anesthesiology group and its officers were sued by a former member of the group for national origin discrimination and retaliation claims. Cohen and his colleagues obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against the defendants and an order for costs. The case established precedent on “stray remarks” as not constituting direct evidence of discrimination and the need for common decision makers to have performed the alleged discriminatory acts.