Represented a major gas marketing company in a suit by a power plant claiming more than $7 MM in damages alleging that gas delivered to the plant did not meet gas quality specifications. A team of Munsch Hardt attorneys prevailed on summary judgment in the trial court based on a contractual bar against consequential damages and other issues. After five appellate opinions, including two by the Texas Supreme Court, Munsch Hardt successfully defended the trial court judgment, which was affirmed in favor of the client.

Obtained an appellate ruling in favor of a mobile phone manufacturer, against allegations the client’s technology led to the death of a 9-1-1 caller. A team of Munsch Hardt attorneys obtained a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the underlying claims before a district court, because the plaintiffs could not establish a causal link between the operation of the mobile phone and the caller’s death. The litigation team established on the face of the pleadings, it was evident emergency responders could have reached the 9-1-1 caller in time to assist if they timely had used information relayed by a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Munsch Hardt briefed and presented oral argument in the subsequent appeal, where the court affirmed the lack of a causal relationship to the 9-1-1 caller’s death and further ruled mobile phone manufacturers, as well as data service providers, are beneficiaries of a Texas “immunity” statute that applies to equipment or services used for 9-1-1 calls.

Obtained appellate ruling authorizing a malicious prosecution claim against the United States. In 1999, an eventual Munsch Hardt client was indicted and criminally prosecuted for allegedly transporting hazardous waste without appropriate legal authority. The criminal charges were dismissed in 2003—and eight years later, the client learned agents from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation had fabricated the bases for the charges—motivated by their involvement in an extra-marital affair with one another. A team of Munsch Hardt attorneys filed suit against the United States in 2012, based on a provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act that waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for select claims, including claims for malicious prosecution. A district court held the claims were time barred, although the underlying misconduct by the federal agents had been concealed.Munsch Hardt appealed and obtained a ruling reversing the trial court holding, thereby enabling the malicious prosecution claim to proceed.

Represented a railcar manufacturer initially in an enforcement action brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, then in derivative civil litigation against a predecessor owner of a manufacturing facility located in western Pennsylvania. In the derivative civil litigation, the client asserted claims against the predecessor owner, including claims premised on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The lower court dismissed the CERCLA claims based on its rationale the client’s “state law” settlement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could not serve as a predicate for a federal right of action under CERCLA. Munsch Hardt attorneys were part of a team of attorneys who successfully appealed and obtained reversal of that ruling, thus clarifying state law resolutions of environmental liability can support a federal right to relief under CERCLA.