As part of its business plan, MLR has pledged to give back to the community. Rather than participating in multiple charities and functions, where our resources would have less of an impact, the members of MLR decided to focus on a handful of events per year to better bring to bear the firm's efforts as a whole. Each member of MLR personally selects one charitable event or fund raiser per year, which the entire staff then supports and participates in.

In February 2010, MLR participated in a fundraiser benefitting Big Brothers Big Sisters Columbia Northwest, called Bowl For Kids' Sake. This event was selected by Rob Williams, who has participated as a Big Brother for many years. MLR raised over $2,000 for this worthy event.

In May 2010, MLR participated in the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation's Great Strides walk. This event was chosen by FJ Maloney, who has a family member with cystic fibrosis. Through donations from MLR, its staff, family, friends, opposing attorneys, and the general legal community, MLR helped raise over $3000 to help assist with medical research toward finding a cure for cystic fibrosis.

In June 2010, MLR will participate in the St. Andrew's Legal Clinic's Walk for Justice. This event, selected by Beth Cupani, who is a board member with the Legal Clinic, is an annual event that raises tens of thousands of dollars, and immeasurable awareness, for pro bono and legal access for those members of our community who need, but who cannot usually afford, legal representation.

In April and May 2010, MLR, with FJ Maloney as the lead trial attorney, tried two back-to-back jury trials to verdict in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland. Known as the "Terwilliger Landslide Cases," these two cases involved a house which, due to saturated soils, slid down a steep slope into several houses below. The two primary houses involved in the landslide were insured by the same company, who denied the insurance claim based upon several exclusions, including those for earth movement, soil conditions, water damage, and collapse. The policyholders filed two separate lawsuits soon after their claims were denied, alleging millions of dollars in extracontractual damages, policy limits, tort claims against the carrier, and tort claims against their insurance agents. Through several rounds of pretrial motions, the tort claims and extracontractual damages were dismissed shortly before trial, leaving only the breach of contract claims for trial. The two jury trials involved extensive expert and lay witness testimony regarding the cause of the landslide. A complete defense verdict was obtained in the first case, and $40,000 returned in the second case -- a mere fraction of the amount that went to the jury. Click HERE for a recent link to The Oregonian newspaper articles on the case.

On May 12, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment in a first party liability case defended by MLR. The case involved a young man who held a party at his parents' house while they were out of town. Predictably, the party got out of hand and one of the party-goers passed out on railroad tracks that ran along one side of the property. He was then hit by a train and lost a leg. He filed suit against the owners of the house, who tendered the defense of the case to their homeowners insurer. The company denied the tender because the young man holding the party was not in "insured" under the policy. Following denial of the tender, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which included an assignment of all rights against the insurance company. The plaintiff then filed suit against the insurance company in state court. The case was removed to federal court, and on behalf of the defendant carrier, MLR filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that the young man throwing the party was an "insured" under the homeowners policy because he was charged with taking care of his parents' pets while they were out of town. MLR argued that even though it was not expressly stated in the policy, the only reasonable interpretation of the policy was to only impose liability where the pet causes harm to third parties while in the care of the pet sitter. Because the pets that the young man was caring for did not cause the harm or injury, he was not in "insured." The motion for summary judgment was granted by the magistrate judge, and after plaintiff objected, upheld by the Article III judge. Click HERE to view a copy of the opinion.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company insured a cotton ginning facility in Memphis, Tennessee that was destroyed by fire. During the course of replacing the property, Hartford learned that false invoices had been submitted through shell corporations for equipment that was never purchased or which was fraudulently inflated. Hartford filed a declaratory judgment complaint to have the policy deemed void and to recover all of the $3.4 million in policy benefits already paid. The District Court granted Hartford's motion for summary judgment, deemed the policy void, and awarded Hartford $3.4 million in policy benefits. USDC Western Tennessee Case No. 07-CV-2405. Post judgment issues regarding imposition of prejudgment interest are still being briefed before the District Court. Calcot has also appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit.