BSCR Firm News/Blogs Feed

Andrew Chipperfield Presents at MAMIC 2025 Claims Seminar

24 Jan 2025

On Jan. 14, Baker Sterchi Senior Attorney Andrew Chipperfield co-presented the session “Hot Topics: Overflow vs. Backup, Aggressive Contractors, Cosmetic Issues, Etc.” at the 2025 Missouri Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (MAMIC) Claims Seminar held in Columbia, Missouri.

Based in St. Louis, Chipperfield represents clients in cases involving personal injury, catastrophic and fatal claims, premises liability and commercial matters. He is a member of the Lawyers Association of St. Louis and has previously been recognized in Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Chipperfield earned his law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law and is licensed to practice in Missouri and Illinois.

MAMIC was formed to promote the interests of insurance, with a mission to recommend improved and uniform methods for transacting business.

Michelle Meloche to Facilitate 2025 Healthcare Liability Trends Panel Discussion

23 Jan 2025

On Jan. 29, Baker Sterchi associate Michelle Meloche will facilitate the virtual panel discussion, “Healthcare Liability Trends for 2025.” Hosted by the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF), the panel will discuss healthcare liability trends for 2025 and explore how healthcare liability professionals can best prepare to advise and defend clients in this evolving landscape.

Meloche has a practice focused on representing healthcare providers, often defending against medical malpractice claims. In addition to her role as Chair of PLDF’s Healthcare Liability Committee, she is actively engaged in several other healthcare and legal organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Health Law Section, the American Health Lawyers Association and DRI’s Medical Liability and Health Care Law Committee. Meloche earned her law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law with a concentration in Health Law and holds an M.P.H. in Health Management & Policy from Saint Louis University. She is licensed to practice in Missouri and Illinois.

PLDF is an organization focused on advancing the defense of professional liability claims through education and networking among attorneys, insurance experts and risk management professionals.

For more information or to register for the panel discussion, click here.

Heather Shore to Present at 20th Annual ASPE KC Construction Estimating Academy

22 Jan 2025

On Feb. 6, Baker Sterchi Member Heather Shore will present “Construction Law for Estimators,” at the 2025 KC Construction Estimating Academy being held at the Ball Event Center in Olathe, Kansas. Her presentation will address the benefits and burdens of cost plus contracts and other alternative delivery methods, as well as key legal construction terms and issues.

Based in Kansas City, Shore has nearly 30 years of experience handling complex construction, surety and commercial litigation. She actively participates in professional organizations related to her practice, serving on the American Arbitration Association’s Panel of Construction and Commercial Arbitrators and as a member of the American Bar Association’s Construction and Surety sections. Shore frequently speaks and writes on legal and business issues affecting the construction and surety industries at national and state levels. She is licensed to practice in Missouri, Kansas, Colorado and Texas.

Hosted by the American Society of Professional Estimators (ASPE) Chapter 32, the KC Construction Estimating Academy is an annual event designed to bring together construction estimators, project managers and industry professionals for a day of learning, networking and professional growth.

For more information or to register for the conference, click here.

Beasley and Kane Recognized by Illinois Super Lawyers 2025

21 Jan 2025

Illinois Super Lawyers 2025 has recognized Member Laura Beasley on its Super Lawyers list and Member Meghan Kane on its Rising Stars list. Beasley is recognized for her work in civil litigation defense, while Kane is recognized in personal injury defense. Both attorneys are based in the firm's Belleville office.

Beasley is a trial attorney with extensive experience in civil defense litigation. A past president of the Illinois Defense Counsel (IDC), she currently serves on its Diversity & Inclusion Committee. Beasley also holds board positions with the East St. Louis and St. Clair County Bar Associations and is a member of the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys Executive Council, Class of 2027. She earned her law degree from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and is admitted to practice in Illinois and Missouri.

Kane focuses her civil defense practice on product and premises liability and toxic tort litigation. She serves as vice chair of the IDC’s Tort Law Committee and co-chair of Baker Sterchi's Toxic Tort Practice Group. Kane is also treasurer of the Madison County Bar Association. She earned her law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law and is admitted to practice in Illinois and Missouri.

Super Lawyers highlights attorneys who have achieved significant peer recognition and professional accomplishments. Its annual selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, recognizing no more than five percent of attorneys in each state.

The Rising Stars designation honors top attorneys who are 40 years old or younger or have been practicing for 10 years or less. Only 2.5 percent of attorneys in each state earn this recognition.

Corporate Associate, Kansas City

21 Jan 2025

Our Kansas City office has a unique opportunity for an associate with at least five years of corporate and transactional experience including mergers and acquisitions. View the job description here.

Baker Sterchi Welcomes Manni Jandernoa Watson in St. Louis

17 Jan 2025

Baker Sterchi welcomes Manni Jandernoa Watson as an associate in the firm’s St. Louis office. Their practice focuses on appeals, products liability, personal injury and insurance coverage.

Jandernoa Watson earned their law degree from the Saint Louis University School of Law and holds an undergraduate degree from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Admitted to practice law in Missouri in Sept. 2024, Jandernoa Watson was a 2023 Baker Sterchi summer law clerk.

Visa, Mastercard, and American Express Face Legal Setback as Judge Upholds Illinois Law on Credit Card Fee and Data Restrictions

16 Jan 2025

ABSTRACT: A recent ruling in the U.S District Court for Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division has left major credit card companies like Visa, Mastercard, and American Express reeling after the Court refused to enjoin an Illinois law restricting interchange fees on gratuity, tip, or state and local taxes. The decision marks a significant development in the ongoing battle over credit card fee regulations, potentially reshaping the financial landscape for issuers, banks, businesses, and consumers.

On May 29, 2024, Illinois joined a small minority of jurisdictions that have outlawed credit card surcharges by passing the Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (“IFPA”) into law. The IFPA prohibits issuers, acquirers, processors, and payment card networks from receiving any interchange fee, or charging a merchant any interchange fee, on the tax amount or gratuity in an electronic payment transaction.

Enforcement and Data Collection

Enforcing the law is accomplished by the merchant designating taxes and gratuities as such during either the authorization or settlement process (which occurs immediately at the point of sale). Merchants unable to designate taxes and gratuities in real time can participate in a rebate program, in which the merchant can share the data after the transaction in question for period of up to 180 days. Additionally, the IFPA prohibits the use of payment data for any purpose other than processing the transaction and sets a penalty of $1,000 per violative transaction.

Subsequent Litigation

On August 15, 2024, the Illinois Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, and other plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S District Court for Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division (Illinois Bankers Association et al. v. Kwame Raou), seeking both a declaration that the IFPA was unlawful and an order enjoining it. The main arguments against implementation of the law are that it will massively disrupt the payments system and is preempted by federal law. The Court issued a 37-page Memorandum Opinion and Order ruling stating the Illinois Bankers “have demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits” that the IFPA is preempted by the National Bank Act (“NBA”) and the Homeowners Credit Loan Act (“HOLA”). Specifically, the Court ruled federal law provides “an express right for national banks to collect non-interest fees“, that IFPA “directly regulates credit and debit card transactions … by “dictating to Issuers how much they may charge for a given transaction” and “alter a bank’s right to determine how best to structure their non-interest fee arrangement with merchants.”

The Court also preempted the IFPA restriction on the use of transaction data for “any purpose other than processing the transaction.” The Court stated limiting the use of transaction data for only processing the transaction contradicts federal law that “explicitly grant[s] national banks the power to provide data processing and transmission services for itself and others, where that data relates to banking, finance, and economics.” Further, the restriction would curtail the use of data for purposes such as “aggregating transaction data to monitor credit card fraud, address payment disputes, and facilitate cardholder loyalty programs.” Although the court ruled the IFPA is preempted from applying to institutions regulated by the NBA and HOLA, it will still apply to credit card companies. The Court states “the preemptive effect of the NBA’s provision of rights to national banks does not extend to other, non-national bank or savings associations participants in credit and debit card transactions, including Card Networks like Visa or Mastercard.”

Although the ruling clearly exempts certain parties in a credit transaction from the law’s application, card issuers are still subject to the law’s restrictions on transaction data and interchange fees. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2025. Interestingly, interchange fees collected are meant to compensate issuers (the cardholders bank) for the risk of non-payment they take on by providing the funds up front each time the cardholder swipes the card. However, transaction data is used by all parties -- issuers, card networks like Visa and Mastercard, merchant banks, and merchants. Further arguments in the case regarding whether the National Credit Union Act preempts IFPA are set for January 15, 2025. We will continue to monitor the case for additional rulings and appeals.

NLRB Returns to Gissel Standard to Evaluate Employer Statements on How Unionization May Impact Employer-Employee Relationships

13 Jan 2025

ABSTRACT: The NLRB’s recent decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks overturned previous categorical protections for employer statements on the effects of unionization on employer-employee relations, and now requires these statements to be based in “objective fact.”

In Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, the NLRB ruled that is abandoning the Tri-Cast standard that had been in place for the past 40 years, and returning to the earlier Gissel Packing standard for determining if an employer’s statements in a mandatory meeting to discuss unionization violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

NLRB Chairman Lauren McFerran stated she believes Board’s return to the Gissel standard will bring “greater consistency” to the way the Board evaluates employer statements about unionization and the potential effects.

Underlying Facts

The statements at issue in this case were made by management during a meeting that was called after the charging party (Workers United) petitioned for a representation election. In reference to the potential unionization, a manager for the employer stated “If you want to maintain a direct relationship with leadership, you’ll check off ‘no.’” The statements found to be in violation threatened that employees would lose already-existing benefits of employment, nonunionized locations would receive benefits over unionized locations, and that collective bargaining would not resolve employer’s inability to tip out employees from credit card payments.

Tri-Cast v. Gissel Standards

The existing standard was created in the NLRB’s decision in the Tri-Cast case in 1985, which the ALJ applied here. The Tri-Cast standard specifies that employer comments on the impact of unionization on employer/employee communication and relationships are “categorically lawful” and do not violate the NLRA. The ALJ determined and the Board affirmed that the manager’s statement regarding “maintaining a direct relationship with leadership” did not violate Section 8(a)(1) under the Tri-Cast standard that deems these statements “categorically lawful.”

While affirming the ALJ’s decision, the Board ruled that Tri-Cast will no longer apply going forward. NLRB General Counsel argued that statements threatening the loss of an existing employee benefit if employees elect to unionize should be considered unlawful, and the Board’s main criticism of the Tri-Cast categorical protection was that it is so broad that “almost any statement involving employees’ ability to pursue grievances individually is permissible”, thus discouraging employees from exercising their Section 7 rights.

The Board stated that they will use the Gissel standard from now on, which requires that employer statements about consequences of unionization be “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control”; and that they not threaten employees’ existing rights and benefits. If an employer makes such statement implying adverse consequences as a result of unionization that are not “grounded in objective fact”, then it is considered unlawfully coercive and a threat of retaliation against employees.

Key Takeaways

Any Employer currently involved in a union organizational campaign must be aware of these significant new restrictions on permissible statements. The law has changed dramatically.

However, this and other recent Board rulings with a pro-employee emphasis may turn out to be relatively short-lived. On December 11, 2024, the U.S. Senate voted 49-50 against extending the term of incumbent NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran, which means that sometime in the first half of 2025, there will almost certainly be a Republican majority on the Board. (A vote in McFerran’s favor would have ensured a Democratic Board majority into mid-2026.) President Trump will also put in place a new NLRB General Counsel, and we anticipate that the new Republican Board and General Counsel will seek to quickly reverse various Biden-era NLRB rulings, including this one. Other likely targets include Atlanta Opera, where the Board narrowed employer rights to treat workers as independent contractors; Stericycle, which changed the standard for review of employer rules and policies; and Cemex, which broadened the circumstances in which an employer could be order to recognize a union without an election.

We will keep our readers informed of further developments, as the new Administration and soon-to-be reconstituted Board take hold.

Baker Sterchi Lawyers Uphold Huge Sanction Award in Climbing Gym Case

08 Jan 2025

Baker Sterchi attorneys Bob Christie and John Barry, Seattle, obtained a big win in the Washington State Court of Appeals, Div. 1 in Seattle. They represented a climbing gym facility, the first of its kind in the country.

The Case Against the Gym and Manufacturer

One of the devices used in the gym is called an auto-belay, which allows a climber to be safely arrested if he or she falls while climbing solo. The manufacturer, a co- defendant, was the focus of a suit brought by a gym member that fell and was injured. Investigation into the fall suggested that the auto-belay device failed to properly brake.

With a fault-free plaintiff, the risk to the climbing gym in the event it was found to have any degree of fault, however small, was the imposition of joint and several liability under Washington law. The manufacturer had a $4 million excess policy in addition to its $1 million primary layer, providing significant protection for our client. However, the excess insurer rescinded the policy for misrepresentation, something their lawyers failed to disclose in discovery for months as the parties prepared for a multi-week trial.

Pre-Trial Developments

When new counsel came in for the manufacture on the eve of trial, she immediately saw the failure on the part of her predecessors and supplemented plaintiff’s discovery questions about available insurance coverage. Our client’s exposure risk jumped up dramatically.

Resolution for Our Client

We reached out to plaintiff’s counsel and immediately settled the claims against our client for its $1 million policy limits. We then teamed up with plaintiff’s counsel and directed our focus on the manufacturer and its prior counsel, filing sanction motions against them seeking to recover all our fees and costs incurred in the months before trial. Our argument was straightforward: we would have reached the identical settlement months earlier had we known of the rescission, given the increased risk to our client, who otherwise had a solid defense.

Trial Court Sanctions

The trial court granted both our sanction motions, awarding our client over $200,000 in fees. At our urging the court set our rate equal to that of plaintiff’s counsel, using a lodestar analysis that looked at reasonable rates, not capped at our panel counsel rates. The court also rejected the argument that we could not rely on plaintiff’s discovery request seeking insurance policy information from the manufacturer.

Appeal and Final Outcome

The manufacturer and its counsel posted the full sanction awards and pursued an appeal. On December 2, a unanimous panel affirmed the sanction awards, accepting all our arguments. Faced with the certainty of the Court of Appeals awarding all our fees on appeal, the attorneys for both appellants agreed to pay them at the same high rate structure. The total sanction award in our favor topped out at just over $264,000. There is a pending motion asking the Court of Appeals to publish the opinion, to be decided soon.

Four Attorneys Join Baker Sterchi In Oregon, Expanding Pacific Northwest Presence

07 Jan 2025

Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC is pleased to announce that, effective Jan. 1, 2025, Jeanne Loftis has joined the firm as a Member in Portland, Oregon. This expansion strengthens the firm’s Pacific Northwest presence, following the addition of a Seattle office in September 2024.

Loftis has served as first chair in more than 25 cases tried to verdict involving mass tort and product liability matters, including those involving asbestos, breast implants, pelvic mesh, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Her experience also extends to employment litigation and cases involving management liability, premises liability, construction injury and defect, investor mismanagement and fraud, environmental cleanup, sexual abuse and high exposure vehicular casualty.

"Jeanne's wealth of trial experience and leadership in the legal community enhances our capabilities in the Pacific Northwest," said Scott Kreamer, Baker Sterchi's Managing Member. "Her reputation for excellence and dedication to her clients aligns perfectly with our firm's values as we continue to grow in the region."

Loftis is a former president of the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel and currently chairs its Past Presidents Advisory Board. She serves as chair of the National Membership Committee for the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys and as secretary of the Oregon Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates. She is also a past chair of the Litigation Section of the Oregon State Bar.

In addition, Loftis holds leadership roles with DRI, including as a member of the DRI Annual Employment Symposium Steering Committee. She is also an active member of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel.

Loftis earned her law degree from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law and her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Davis. She is licensed to practice in Oregon, Washington and California.

"Joining Baker Sterchi offers exciting opportunities for our clients and our team in Oregon," said Loftis. "The firm’s collaborative culture and accomplished bench of trial lawyers provides a strong foundation for growth, and I look forward to contributing to its continued expansion in the Pacific Northwest."

Joining Loftis in the Portland office are associates Clarens Emrich, Hayley Hollis and Justin Meyer, each of whom brings valuable experience and a commitment to delivering high-quality legal representation.

Emrich focuses on complex commercial, personal injury defense and product liability matters. He previously served as a law clerk in the Office of the Metro Attorney and in the U.S. District Court of Oregon with the Honorable John V. Acosta. He earned his law degree from Lewis & Clark Law School and his undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Colorado Boulder. Emrich is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington.

Hollis represents clients in the construction and insurance industries, with a practice encompassing class actions, multidistrict litigation, complex commercial matters, employment and professional liability defense. Hollis earned her law degree from Lewis & Clark Law School, a master’s degree in communication studies from Sam Houston State University, and an undergraduate degree from the University of Texas at Austin. She is licensed to practice in Oregon and Washington.

Meyer focuses his practice on complex civil matters, including mass tort, personal injury, complex litigation, and legal malpractice. He develops legal education programs for young lawyers in Oregon and serves as a DRI vice liaison to the Asbestos Litigation Law Committee. He earned his law degree from Gonzaga University School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Linfield College. Meyer is licensed to practice in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.