ZEK represents financial institutions, automobile dealerships and commercial businesses and individuals in connection with a wide array of personal injury actions, as well as insurers in connection with coverage issues arising from fronting programs and representation of financial institutions in prosecuting insured claims.

As in other areas of our litigation practice, we strive to achieve an early resolution of our cases. This includes an aggressive approach towards making summary judgment motions and, when appropriate, initiating settlement discussions. Of course, our attorneys are well-seasoned litigators who are ready to accept the challenge of defending our clients’ interests at trial.

Consistent with ZEK’s overall philosophy, we endeavor to maintain a rapport with our clients in which they recognize that we can be called upon, in an informal manner, to offer consultation on matters not in litigation. One example of this would be preventative risk management. Based upon the knowledge that we acquire in defending our clients, we believe that we are uniquely positioned to guide and counsel them in an effort to avoid further similar claims. Of course, in appropriate instances we also give our clients notice of notable legal decisions and emerging trends.

We have enjoyed considerable success in defeating plaintiffs at both the summary judgment and trial stages. For example, we are proud of our accomplishment in obtaining a unanimous defendant’s verdict averting a multi-million dollar recovery by a bank customer who claimed he was permanently disabled from carrying on any kind of occupation to support his family because of a fractured skull and multiple herniated disks he sustained in a fall outside a bank branch.

While we believe that there is no such thing as “garden variety” negligence cases, ZEK has carved a niche defending its clients in complex types of matters. Representative of what we handle in addition to the routine premises and automobile liability cases include claims involving alleged lead poisoning, assaults on bank customers in ATM vestibules, product liability, sudden vehicle acceleration and Labor Law violations. In one such case, after a two week trial, a jury refused to hold our client, the occupant of commercial premises at which the plaintiff was performing construction related activities, vicariously liable under the Labor Law. As a result of our exposure to such a variety of litigations, it is uncommon for us to confront a claim that could be characterized as one of first impression.