Download PDF

Marisa A. Pocci Carney

Local Office Managing Partner

NV – Las Vegas
T: 702.949.9303 | F: 702.916.1776

vCard

Marisa has significant experience handling insurance defense matters and other civil litigation matters in areas of law that include construction defect, product liability, professional liability and variety of general liability matters. She represents companies across a wide range of industries, including apartment complexes, property managers and homeowner associations, as well as developers, general contractors and subcontractors. Marisa also represents security companies, insurance agencies and financial institutions, as well as hospitality clients such as nightclubs, restaurants and hotel-casinos.

Prior to joining Litchfield Cavo LLP in 2017, Marisa worked in the Nevada office of a California-based litigation firm for more than 10 years and focused her legal practice on defending Nevada and Arizona construction defect matters as well as the defense of other civil matters. Previously, she gained experience at a Cleveland, Ohio-based law firm where she focused her practice on civil litigation matters. While earning her degree at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Marisa served as a judicial extern to Honorable Donald C. Nugent in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Marisa is currently the managing partner of Litchfield Cavo’s Nevada office.

Practices

  • Prevailed in premises liability case for our hotel/casino client against claims of a slip and fall in our client’s hotel bathroom, resulting in injuries; the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada granted our Motion for Summary Judgment in full, ruling in favor of our client.
  • Obtained defense verdict on behalf of our insurance client in assignment-of-benefits dispute wherein third-party contractor sought double payment on a post-loss assignment.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of an insurance broker client in a professional liability case wherein Plaintiffs claimed a loss of more than $2 million due to a fire and alleged that our client failed to procure the appropriate coverage; the Court agreed that Plaintiffs had failed to establish the requisite special relationship between Plaintiff and our client, and that Plaintiffs had failed to present the necessary supporting expert opinion.