Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling space Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & BOWLING, P.C. BIRMINGHAM OFFICE 3800 CORPORATE WOODS DRIVE, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35242 P 205-278-7000  F 205-278-7001 Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & BOWLING, P.C. MONTGOMERY OFFICE 401 MADISON AVENUE, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104 P 334-387-0529
Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling Home Page Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C. News The Law Firm of Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C. The Attorneys Of Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C. Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling Practice Areas Contact Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C.

11th Circuit Win — Friedman Attorneys Obtain Summary Judgment on behalf of Client and Affirmation from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Jeff Friedman and Jim Moss successfully defended Insituform Technologies, Inc. obtaining an Affirmation of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Insituform against Plaintiff Business Realty Investment Company ("BRIC"). Plaintiff filed suit in the Northern District alleging claims including violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 resulting in constitutional deprivation of its due process rights; inverse condemnation and trespass. The case arose out of sewer rehabilitation work performed by Insituform pursuant to a contract awarded to a joint venture that included Insituform. Plaintiff sought over $380,000 in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees contending that Insituform was liable for a destroyed section of sewer line owned by the plaintiff. Associate Charlie Nelson was instrumental in assisting with research and preparation of the Brief filed on behalf of Insituform in the 11th Circuit. Jim Moss took the lead in defending Insituform and presented oral argument on behalf of Insituform before a three judge panel in the 11th Circuit. As always, Jeff Friedman's skill and experience was valuable throughout. Ultimately, the 11th Circuit affirmed the District Court's Order finding that Insituform was not a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the statute of limitations had run on BRIC's Alabama trespass claim. This was a hard fought battle at the District Court level and on appeal before the 11th Circuit over the last few years culminating in an outstanding result on behalf of Insituform.

Contributing Author:

James W. Moss
James W. Moss, Shareholder
Email Address
Direct Line 205-278-7011
vCard View Profile


< Back to News Home Page


This client alert is provided solely for educational and informational purposes. It is not intended to constitute legal advice. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.