Frilot L.L.C.

  • Established in 1995
  • Firm Size 45
  • Peer Reviews

    4.7/5.0 (88)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #10 in weekly profile views out of 1,032 Law Firms in New Orleans, LA
    • #1,888 in weekly profile views out of 299,964 total law firms Overall
Attorney Awards

Products Liability

Frilot L.L.C. is a leading products liability defense firm with an established reputation for excellence on a national, regional and local basis. Products liability is the firm’s largest practice area. More than twenty lawyers devote substantial time to actively litigating cases throughout the United States.

Our group of lawyers, using a small, dedicated team approach has developed a strong understanding of what is required to manage successful jury trials. The firm’s success is truly unparalleled: defense verdicts were obtained in more than 90% of the cases tried. Many other cases have been won through motion practice. Equally important, the firm’s success on appeals of products liability cases matches its trial success.

There is no doubt that a clear understanding by our opponents of the firm’s track record in the courtroom and of our willingness, readiness and ability to try cases with significant exposure has enhanced the resolutions we have achieved for our clients. Our lawyers have defended manufacturers of all types of products in over 30 states, including, of course, industrial and consumer goods. Many of the products liability cases handled by the firm have involved catastrophic personal injuries or have arisen from significant fires or explosions.

The attorneys of Frilot L.L.C. also have considerable experience and success in handling on a national basis what is referred to as pattern litigation involving products. We know what is at stake for product manufacturers in such pattern litigation and how best to address it. Our team works in close partnership with manufacturers every step of the way to insure the best possible outcome.

The depth and scope of the firm’s products liability practice is evidence by the following partial list of products which have been defended by the firm:

Aerial platforms
Air conditioners
Air eliminators
Air handlers
Aluminum window walls
Aluminum wire
Agricultural chemicals
Asbestos and asbestos products
ATVs
Automobiles
Band saws
Battery chargers
Bicycles
Circular saws
Closet organizers
Clothes Washers
Compressors
Computer software
Controllers
Cranes
Desuperheaters
Dishwashers
Drilling equipment
Dryers
Electric doors
Electric motors
Farm equipment
Furnaces
Gas Controls
Gaskets and insulation materials
Hand tools
Heaters
Hermetic terminals
Hydraulic steering systems
Industrial chemicals
Ladders
Lead paint
Miter saws
Pipe
Pipe threaders
Power tools
Radial arm saws
Roof shingles
Sandblasters
Scaffolding
Shop Vacs
Sprayers
Surgical equipment
Table saws
Thermostats
Tires
Valves
Video games
Water heaters
Wheels

Representative Cases

David Bolton v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-08-CV-209-J
On October 16, 2009, Frilot attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, on behalf of Louisville Ladder, Inc. in David Bolton v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., Civil Action No. 2-08-CV-209-J. The gravamen of Plaintiff’s suit was that he sustained serious injuries resulting from his use of a six(6) foot fiberglass stepladder which was allegedly defectively designed by Louisville Ladder. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff shattered both of his wrists and suffered a severe head injury. In all, Plaintiff’s spent almost six (6) months in care facilities as a result of his injuries. Louisville Ladder contended that the accident was caused solely by Plaintiff’s carelessness. At the conclusion of the three day trial the jury exonerated Louisville Ladder.

Cassandra Sampson, et al v. Claiborne Butane, et al, Suit No. 36,748
Frilot attorney David A. Olson obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in the Second Judicial District for Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, on behalf of Rheem Manufacturing Company. In Cassandra Sampson, et al v. Claiborne Butane, et al, Suit No. 36,748, the plaintiff sued the defendants seeking damages, pursuant to the Louisiana Products Liability Act, for the wrongful death of three family members in a residential house fire. The plaintiff alleged that the subject water heater was the origin and cause of the subject fire, and that the water heater was unreasonably dangerous in manufacture and for a failure to warn. After a two week trial, a twelve member jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants.

Henry Stanislowsky et al vs. Rheem Manufacturing
Frilot L.L.C. obtained a major defense victory for client Rheem Manufacturing Company, a privately held manufacturer of water heaters, in a jury trial in the New York State Supreme Court, Sarasota County.

The product liability case, Henry Stanislowsky et al vs. Rheem Manufacturingarose when the plaintiff, using a highly flammable liquid to remove the carpet in his brother’s basement, experienced 2nd and 3rd degree burns to over 30% of his body from a fire allegedly ignited by a Rheem gas-fueled water heater. Mr. Stanislowsky alleged that Rheem’s water heater was defectively designed and not equipped with needed devices to prevent this incident. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the heater did not come with an 18” stand to raise it above the flammable vapors. After two weeks of trial, the jury took only 1 ½ hours to return a unanimous verdict finding no product defect. The successful defense of Rheem is particularly significant as the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer has a long history of successfully prosecuting manufacturers of water heaters in this type of case.

Eula Guidry Ardoin et al. v. Stine Lumber Company
The firm represented Universal Forest Products, Inc., the country’s largest wood treater, in a product liability class action seeking replacement of all treated wood in the United States. The firm obtained a dismissal, with prejudice, of our client in this motion.

Flynn v. Louisville Ladder
The firm successfully defended Louisville Ladder in federal court in Marshall, Texas. In that case, a dentist claimed to be disabled because of a manufacturing defect in an aluminum extension ladder and to have lost wages in excess of $8 million. After deliberating forty-five minutes, the jury wholly exonerated the ladder manufacturer.

Arch Chemicals v. Fisher Controls International
The firm obtained a defense verdict for Fisher Controls this case which arose out of an explosive decomposition at a hydrazine plant owned by Arch Chemicals. Arch maintained that it was entitled to a recovery of $1.6 million in physical damage to the chemical plant and lost profits, plus attorneys’ fees and expenses under Louisiana’s redhibition articles. Fisher was exonerated by the jury at the conclusion of the 6-day trial.

Martin v. Nintendo of America
Benoit v. Nintendo of America
Frilot L.L.C. successfully defended Nintendo of America Inc. in two personal injury cases tried simultaneously in federal court in the Western District of Louisiana. Two plaintiffs claimed that they had suffered seizures because of playing Nintendo video games, and that the seizures had been caused by the games’ defective design and inadequate warnings. After four days of trial, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their respective claims. The Martin case also involved a federal statutory claim brought under the Consumer Product Safety Act. In what is believed to be the first trial of its kind anywhere, the claim was tried for almost 3 weeks to the bench in the Western District of Louisiana.

Riley v. Rheem
Firm attorneys successfully defended Rheem Manufacturing in Clarksville, Tennessee in a state court case that had been tried twice before. The plaintiff alleged that the fire that killed her son had begun when gasoline vapors contacted a Rheem gas-fired water heater installed in the family’s garage. She claimed that the water heater was defectively designed and bore inappropriate labeling. After hearing a week of evidence and testimony, the 12-person jury concluded that the water heater was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous and returned a unanimous verdict in Rheem’s favor.

Paul Heilman, et al v. Perfection Corporation
As national counsel for the top five manufacturers of water heaters, comprising almost 100% of that industry, Frilot successfully settled one of the largest class action settlements ever on behalf of the U.S. water heater industry. The water heater companies were named in approximately 23 separate state and federal class action lawsuits throughout the country involving a defective component part provided by a third party supplier to the industry. As counsel for the water heater industry, Frilot successfully consolidated and settled these claims in a national class action suit involving more than 14,000,000 class members.

Schram v. Emerson Electric Co.
Firm attorneys defended Emerson Electric Company in a products liability case involving the loss of 27 thoroughbred race horses, a loss of a barn and lost profits for the corporation that owned the horses. The plaintiff filed suit in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana, seeking $4 million in damages. The plaintiff alleged that a motor manufactured by Emerson Electric Co. was the cause of the fire. After a 3 week trial, the jury exonerated Emerson Electric Co. and awarded the plaintiff no money.

People (45)

0 Applied Filters

Refine Results

Admiralty & Maritime, Insurance Defense, Transportation and Trucking

Peer Reviews
No Reviews

Mass Tort & Class Actions, Medical Malpractice & Healthcare

Peer Reviews
4.7/5.0 (20) Reviews

Admiralty & Maritime, Energy & Environmental, Mass Tort & Class Actions, Products Liability

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0

Medical Malpractice & Healthcare

Peer Reviews
No Reviews

Medical Malpractice & Healthcare, Professional Liability

Peer Reviews
4.6/5.0 (28) Reviews

Labor & Employment, Products Liability

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0 (1) Review

Insurance Coverage, Professional Liability

Peer Reviews
4.9/5.0 (4) Reviews

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Admiralty & Maritime, Insurance Coverage, Transportation & Trucking

Peer Reviews
5.0/5.0 (1) Review

Admiralty & Maritime, Construction Law, Insurance Coverage & Defense, Mass Tort & Class Actions

Peer Reviews
4.7/5.0 (2) Reviews

Admiralty & Maritime, Mass Tort & Class Actions, Energy & Environmental, Construction Law, Insurance Coverage & Defense

Peer Reviews
4.3/5.0 (3) Reviews

Peer Reviews

4.7/5.0 (88 reviews)
  • Legal Knowledge

    4.7/5.0
  • Analytical Capability

    4.7/5.0
  • Judgment

    4.7/5.0
  • Communication

    4.7/5.0
  • Legal Experience

    4.7/5.0

*Attorneys who only have peer reviews prior to April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Documents (5)

Documents by this Organization on Martindale.com

Diversity

Commitment to Diversity

Frilot L.L.C. is committed to fostering a working environment that promotes diversity. The firm believes that diversity of experience, diversity in clients and diversity in the courtroom makes us a more powerful legal resource.  We recruit, retain and advance qualified individuals of all backgrounds and cultural influences. This diversity makes for a richer environment which promotes creative thinking and innovative client solutions.

While we are encouraged by what we have accomplished in our pursuit of diversity, the firm strives to strengthen and advance our commitment to attract and retain women and minorities.  Recognizing that recruitment is only one facet of our overall commitment to diversity, we are also focused in our efforts to develop and sustain a work environment that empowers all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or background, to perform to the best of their abilities.

 

  1. Matter Budgeting and Financial Management

    • Does the firm establish formal budgets for client engagements? Yes
    • Are bills submitted electronically? Yes
  2. Quality Management

    • Does the firm conduct end of matter reviews? Yes
  3. Litigation General Best Practices

    • Does the firm have a formalized new associate litigation training/mentoring program? Yes
    • Does the firm's litigation department have a structured approach to early case assessment? For example: Does your firm implement a standard approach to determine risks and strengths early in a case to assess trial or settlement options? Yes
    • Does the firm have an established records management team to assist clients with records retention, compliance and litigation preparedness? Yes
  4. Litigation eDiscovery Best Practices

    • Does the firm have an established eDiscovery Committee? No
    • Does your firm have any educational programs designed to address the changing federal rules of civil procedure? No
    • Does the firm have a standardized litigation hold program in place for its clients? No
    • Does your firm have a standardized protocol to guide client data collection? (i.e. Maintaining chain of custody, utilizing forensically sound procedures) No
    • Does the firm have a standardized protocol to guide processing clients' edata? (i.e. all data produced in PDF, meta data preserved?) Yes
    • Does the firm have a standardized approach for document reviews across practice groups (i.e. established protocol for eDiscovery review depending on the needs of the case) Yes
  5. Vendor Management

    • Does the firm have preferred vendor relationships? Yes
  6. Knowledge Management

    • Does the firm have a knowledge management program? Yes
  7. Disaster Recovery

    • Does the firm have a disaster recovery plan in place? Yes

Locations (1)

Contact Frilot L.L.C.

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.