Amy has more than 20 years of experience in a variety of civil litigation matters. She has represented manufacturers, sellers, designers and contractors in defense of product liability and toxic tort claims, including claims involving exposures to asbestos, silica, coal tar and lead.
Amy has extensive experience with motions practice, taking and defending depositions and working with experts. Her legal practice includes arguing complex legal issues and discovery challenges, including multi-dimensional discovery.
Amy has represented clients in commercial business contract and insurance disputes, general liability and construction matters. Prior to joining Litchfield Cavo LLP, Amy practiced at both a regional firm and a large international law firm, where she gained experience with large e-discovery projects, appellate matters and government investigations.
- Obtained summary judgment in favor of corporate client on lack of successor liability; the case involved precluding imposition on the client of extensive historic asbestos and employer liabilities of alleged predecessor company.
- Obtained summary judgment in multiple state asbestos cases in favor of product defendant based on Statute of Repose.
- Represented proprietary education company as part of litigation team in multi-billion dollar False Claims Act case and related state and federal government investigations.
- Advised foreign parent company of product defendant on insurance and corporate issues relating to United States asbestos litigation liabilities.
- Defended client in multi-plaintiff age discrimination employment action after class action decertification; summary judgment entered in favor of client.
- Represented foreign company on litigation team in federal court stemming from administration of United Nations humanitarian aid program; trial court granted motions to dismiss, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied opposing party’s petition for writ of certiorari.
- Represented a construction company in case-of-first-impression regarding competitive bidding requirements on $20 million government-funded construction project; successfully argued against preliminary objections to 3-judge panel of Commonwealth Court, and summary judgment and attorneys’ fees ultimately awarded in favor of client and affirmed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court.