Former National Counsel and National Coordinating Counsel for Product Manufacturers and Distributors. National Coordinator and Litigator, Fire Science and Product Liability Litigation. Frequent Lecturer, Fire Science and Product Liability. After obtaining his law degree, Attorney Tedford served as a member of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps. Since that time, he has gained more than 35 years of experience as a tort and product liability trial attorney. He devotes a substantial portion of his practice to fire and explosion litigation, in which he has over 15 years experience. Attorney Tedford is a former National Counsel and National Coordinating Counsel for product manufacturers and distributors. He currently serves as National Coordinator and Litigator for Fire Science and Product Liability and is a frequent lecturer on this subject.
LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
He has litigated to verdict cases where the arson defense was asserted, and has successfully recovered on subrogation claims for his insurance clients. Notably, he was counsel for the plaintiff in the landmark fire science litigation case of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. v. Namerow, 261 Conn. 784 (2002). Attorney Tedford has litigated hundreds of high value matters in courts throughout the country, including cases involving:
· Batted ball head injuries resulting from the use of metal soft ball bats
· Firefighters who sued for wrongful death following the crash of their fire engine
· Negligence and product liability claims brought by a quadriplegic injured in a diving board accident
· Personal injuries from lead paint exposure
· Personal injuries from a motorcycle-automobile accident
· Construction accident involving multiple parties and contract disputes
· Defense of a major chemical manufacturer in lawsuits brought by burn victims
· Death and personal injuries resulting from a night club fire
· Claim for personal injuries by plaintiff leaping from a third-story window to avoid being burned in fire
· Property damage and personal injury stemming from an explosion of chemical products in a warehouse fire
· Defense of insurers in civil arson cases
· Multi-million dollar product liability / fire claim against a tractor-trailer manufacturer
· Alleged personal injuries and wrongful death from exposure to asbestos fibers
· Defense of a multi-million dollar claim for fire damage to a nursing home
· Insurance fraud cases involving commercial as well as personal lines coverage
· Subrogation claims against a clothes dryer manufacturer
· Subrogation claims against a bathroom ceiling fan manufacturer
· Litigation involving fire suppression systems.
LITIGATION PHILOSOPHY
During my years of practice, I have learned that the client's needs constantly vary depending on the circumstances. Sometimes it is in the client's best interests to aggressively litigate a case through trial. In other instances, a prompt and efficient resolution is more appropriate in view of the potential liabilities or the costs of defense. In every case, however, the client's interests are served through an early, competent evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, an assessment of the potential cost of defending the matter through trial, and the development of a strategy which will meet the client's goals. The strength of a case must be balanced against the costs of litigation and the business interests impacted by a verdict or settlement. In certain cases, a prompt settlement is a victory for the client. In other cases, the nature of the claim and the strengths of the client's position warrant vigorous pursuit through trial. In either instance, my goal is to develop a theory early in the case, thereby placing the client in a position of strength to leverage a reasonable settlement or a favorable verdict.