Rapid Response for Catastrophic Accidents Only

Lee H. Eckell

Lee Eckell

Contact Info

P 856-242-2131
F 856-861-6226
leckell@fhmslaw.com

New Jersey Office
10000 Midlantic Drive
Suite 402W
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Map and Directions

Education

  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School of Law (J.D., 2000) Hunter Advanced Moot Court
  • University of Delaware (B.A. in Criminal Justice, 1997)

Bar Memberships

  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Affiliations

  • New Jersey State Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association (Civil Litigation Section)

Speaking Engagements

  • New Jersey PIP, Verbal Threshold and Third Party Liability, presentation to ESIS (February 2011)
  • Overview of New Jersey and Pennsylvania PIP Law, presentation to ACE (August 2007)

Publications

  • Defenses in Slip and Fall cases (2001, 2002) Co-Author
  • Keeping Your Expert: Daubert/Frye Analysis (2001) Co-Author

Lee H. Eckell is a partner in the New Jersey office of Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding. He handles a broad spectrum of casualty matters, including construction accident, construction defect, commercial transportation, premises liability and products liability. Mr. Eckell handles matters from investigation through discovery and trial. He has trial experience in significant matters in a number of counties in New Jersey. Mr. Eckell frequently speaks and writes articles of immediate interest to the defense community. His articles have discussed premises liability, uninsured and underinsured motorist cases, admissibility of expert testimony and issues concerning first party benefits.

Mr. Eckell was selected by his peers for inclusion in Super Lawyers-Rising Stars from 2009 to 2014.

  • Resolution of a construction injury case involving serious injury to Plaintiff, who fell from a roof.  The plaintiff suffered significant injuries including broken bones, muscle tears and post-concussion syndrome with alleged cognitive impairment and depression.  Successful tender of the defense to a subcontractor and full reimbursement of defense costs.
  • Successful defense of a local pest control company as co-counsel during a two-week negligence trial involving the alleged improper use of a pesticide during termite application. Plaintiff alleged that the client’s failure to properly seal cracks before applying the pesticide caused it to migrate into the HVAC system in the basement and then throughout the home.  Plaintiff alleged violation of New Jersey Regulations applicable to licensed pest control applicators.  Neurological injuries, emotional distress and property damage were all alleged.  Plaintiff and her experts theorized that the home was contaminated and had to be demolished and rebuilt and that all of the contents inside the home were damaged.  The demand prior to trial was in excess of seven figures. Plaintiff’s liability experts were cross-examined during trial regarding test results that did not identify dangerous pesticide levels as well as improper characterization of New Jersey’s pest control regulations. Plaintiff’s medical experts were also cross-examined regarding their failure to account for Plaintiff’s prior medical history in their causation opinions. After Plaintiff’s case, the case settled for a fraction of the demand prior to trial.
  • During trial, FHMS and its co-counsel cross-examined Plaintiff’s liability experts regarding the fact that swab samples and air testing done in the home after the application failed to identify dangerous levels of the pesticide and that the experts improperly characterized New Jersey’s pest control regulations.  FHMS and its co-counsel also cross-examined Plaintiff’s medical experts regarding their failure to properly take into account Plaintiff’s prior medical history into their causation opinions.  The case settled after Plaintiff’s case for a fraction of the demand prior to trial.
  • Successful defense of a national supermarket wholesaler at trial in an automobile negligence case. Plaintiff, a married forty-six-year-old union electrician with four children, had not returned to work after being rear-ended by the client. Plaintiff asserted a multi-million-dollar economic loss claim along with permanent injuries to the neck, vestibular system and cognitive function.  Plaintiff’s wife also made a claim for loss of consortium.  During the four-week trial, it was argued that a phantom vehicle was at fault for the accident. In addition, expert and fact witnesses were called to support the defense that Plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as alleged. Prior to trial, the parties attended mediation where there was a multi-million-dollar demand. While a pre-trial offer was made, the matter settled for significantly less than the pre-trial offer after the jury had reached a verdict, but before the verdict was read to the Court by the jury.
  • Extrication of a developer client from a case where a construction worker fell three stories and suffered severe injuries. When a subcontractor’s carrier repeatedly ignored a proper indemnification request, suit was brought against them. The carrier eventually accepted the tender without a reservation of rights and repaid the self-insured developer for legal fees and expenses.
  • Settlement of a slip and fall case after only the opening statements and the testimony of Plaintiff.  The case settled for one tenth of the demand at trial through the development of significant notice defenses during discovery and trial.
  • Resolution of a construction injury case involving serious injury to Plaintiff, who fell from an elevated position while framing a residential home.  The plaintiff suffered significant injuries that required surgery.  Successful tender of the defense to a subcontractor and received not only complete defense and indemnification, but reimbursement of all defense costs for the client.
  • Successful resolution of a number of cases for the client, a national grocery and retail chain. Several cases were resolved without any discovery being performed. An additional significant case was settled within 4 months of assignment. In that time frame, we were able to confirm the liability issues, obtain and review medical and lien information and obtain a contribution from an unrepresented co-defendant.