The Omegaflex Case
The Omegaflex case has generated much media interest, especially in the US due to its similarity with a case known as Jardine vs. Sears. In that case, the plaintiff won a judgment of about two million dollars, which was later reduced to one million dollars. While both situations are similar, they have different roots. While Jardine vs. Sears are one involving an electrical contractor who sold non-refundable credit cards without first obtaining written permission from the customer, the Omegaflex case involves a product liability lawsuit which resulted from an injury sustained while using the product.
Omegaflex Lawsuit
Omegaflex is marketed under a number of names, including “Omegader” and” Omni Filch.” The company has also been linked to a former CEO who was involved in a personal bankruptcy. The lawyers in this case specialize in personal bankruptcy as well as corporate bankruptcy. Some of the attorneys in this case specialize in intellectual property, while others are specialized in real estate.
A review of the Omegaflex case reveals that it was settled out of court for undisclosed terms.
A stipulation of the settlement referred to as an ‘advance’ was reported to be worth one million dollars. The amount was later reported to be substantially less than the original claim. The terms of the settlement were reportedly agreed upon by both parties. No final monetary award has been reported in this case.
On the heels of this announcement, the company released another statement regarding the settlement.
According to this statement, the amount was further reduced on appeal. The reprieve comes just ahead of a scheduled trial set to begin in January. It is expected that the company will be fully exposed during this trial.
Omegaflex is one of several lawsuits filed against the company. This case is unique in that it is one of only a few lawsuits filed on the basis of negligence by one of the named manufacturers. In addition, there are no claims of any injuries from the accident itself. According to one of the named manufacturers, a worker sustained an ankle fracture after falling from one of the company’s trucks.
Omegaflex was one of the named manufacturers in this case.
This company had produced and sold what is considered to be a Class II fire accelerant, which is regulated as a controlled substance. Prior to the accident, it had not been responsible for producing or selling the product. After the incident, it is reported that no one from the company was even aware of the contents of the Class II substance. This makes Omegaflex one of the only companies guilty of a product failure, and yet, negligent of its own products in this case.
There are many attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Omegaflex case.
These lawyers have not been retained for the initial motions or trials set forth in this case. Instead, they will be responsible for the discovery process. Discovery is one of the most important parts of the case, as this is where the plaintiff and their lawyers can gain access to the details of how and why the accident occurred. Discovery is also used for depositions, which in turn provide valuable information about the way the truck was manufactured and how it came into the hands of the defendants.
The Omegaflex case has yet to reach a verdict. If no settlement is reached, then both sides are expected to present their case to the jury at trial. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are expected to present more evidence at trial than that presented by the defendant’s lawyers. The outcome of the Omegaflex case could have broad implications on safety practices in general, as well as the liability of manufacturers. It is important to watch for this particular case and to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney when considering how to proceed with a claim of this type.
