Contact

Brian Chase

Bisnar Chase, LLP

1301 Dove Street, #120

Newport Beach, CA 92660

(949) 752-2999

www.BestAttorney.com

I was one of those long-haired surfer guys who was never going to wear a suit and tie,” says Brian Chase who is now Managing Partner and Senior Trial Attorney heading up the Litigation Department of Bisnar Chase, Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP.

That dramatic reversal in attitude occurred essentially in two stages, Chase says. During his high school days, he was stunned by the infamous Ford Pinto case. The manufacturer was well-aware of a product defect and conducted a cost analysis based on fixing the defect versus paying out on the claims. The decision was that in the long run ignoring the defect was the least costly option. Unfortunately, the subsequent episodes of exploding gas tanks caused tragic and avoidable death and injury.

Chase’s feelings solidified while attending California State University at Long Beach when a class was given an interesting debate problem. The famous “Baby Fay” case in which a baboon’s heart was implanted into a human was to be the pro-and-con subject.

He spent four days, day and night, in the library going through all the microfiche records and digging seriously into that project. “I was so excited by it. I didn’t know why, but I knew I just loved the intellectual challenge of that and in having to argue both sides of it in class. That was a moment when I said, ‘Wow! If I ever get a real job someday, I’m going to be a lawyer because that must be what it’s like. It’s intellectually stimulating, and you have to really prepare. That planted the seed,” he says.

Unlike many attorneys who decide on a practice area late in their college years or even early in their careers, Chase immediately knew he wanted to be a personal injury attorney with a specific emphasis in auto defects.

The Seatback Lawyer takes a Back Seat to No One

Two cases illustrate Chase’s commitment to clients impacted by auto defects. The first involves a rear-end collision and, again, Ford as the manufacturer. The gas tank in a 2004 Mustang exploded causing the death by burning of a 27-year-old man.

“That case is near and dear to my heart because it is so like the Ford Pinto case. In this case Ford knew the government was upgrading its standards. The 2004 Mustangs being tested were failing. Gas tanks had been installed behind the rear axle in the ‘crush zone,’ which inevitably caused ruptures. This is an ongoing case that shows Ford hasn’t learned their lesson,” Chase says.

Another case, Romine vs. Johnson Controls, earned Chase the title “the Seatback Guy.” The seatback in question collapsed in a rear-end collision. His client was projected into the rear of the seat, breaking her neck and making her an incomplete quadriplegic. Chase says, “We settled against the manufacturer and went to trial against Johnson Controls and got a verdict of $24.7 million and change.”

Bisnar Chase tried the case in a unique manner by using the consumer expectation test to prove defect alone. Two methods are used to prove defect in California: using the consumer expectation test and using and risk/benefit test. Chase chose to go with the consumer expectation test alone. All the published opinions in California acknowledged that it’s proper to use that test under certain circumstances, but in every published opinion the courts always held that the case before it wasn’t one of them. It was a risky move, but one that eventually paid off. They got the desired verdict and then the case went up on appeal.

The firm got a published opinion on that case upholding that it was proper to use consumer expectation test. It is the only published opinion in California that says that it’s appropriate to use the test in seatback cases. “What is so great about that is that we have subsequently tried several seatback cases and the courts have to allow us to use the consumer expectations test to prove defect. It’s very difficult for the defense to win a case when you get that ruling because it excludes 95 percent of all the smoke and mirrors evidence they like to throw at a jury. What’s so special about that beyond getting justice for my client, is that hundreds or even thousands of people in the State of California and other states are going to get that help,” Chase says.

Taking a Leadership Role in Mass Torts

Currently the talcum powder cases against Johnson and Johnson are in the news, cases in which the product caused ovarian cancer in women using the product. Chase is on the Plaintiff’s Executives Committee in the California JCCP on that litigation in a leadership role and is heavily involved in that litigation.

They are also litigating cases in the MDL back east, which are starting to heat up. The firm is currently going through the bellwether cases and starting to pick out the cases for bellwether trials. “We have a great judge. We have a tentative trial date for early 2021. J&J has refused thus far to settle the cases. I’m sure they will sooner or later,” he says.

Chase is also heavily involved in the metal-on-metal hip litigation, another Johnson & Johnson/DePuy product—the ASR metal-on-metal hip that was ultimately recalled. Chase believes the settlement numbers are too low, but he has one very brave client who did not want to take the settlement money and wants instead to go to trial. Hip replacement devices in cases like this are supposed to have a less than one percent revision rate per year. If you have a hip for ten years you should have a less than ten percent chance of it being revised. Johnson and Johnson five years in was already up more than 40 percent. “It was an egregious product with no human testing let alone any real substantive laboratory and should have never been put in human beings. I’m very passionate about those cases,” Chase says.

Taking Aggressive Action in Consumer Class Actions

Consumer actions are also a passionate interest for Chase. Currently he is involved in a case against Toyota. The firm coated its auto wiring with a soy-based product which attracts rodents who eat the material. Clients find their cars won’t start or are malfunctioning as wiring harnesses have been eaten through. They take it to their dealer who won’t warranty the repairs, which can cost thousands of dollars. A class action was filed in Orange County Federal Court. Initially, the court granted a motion to dismiss, but after arguing in the Ninth Circuit, the case was revived.

Chase is also co-lead counsel in the California JCCP on the Yahoo data breach case in which there is also a concurrent MDL. The two leadership groups got together and have the case tentatively resolved. At the time of the tentative resolution it was the largest data breech settlement ever. 

A Record of Achievement

Chase is recognized as a leader in his field. He was named 2020 Litigator of the Year; 2020 Top One Percent by the National Association of Distinguished Counsel; 2020 Litigator of the Year by the AIOTL; 2020 and 2021 Top Plaintiff Lawyer, Daily Journal; 2019 Lawyer of the Year; 2019 Million Dollar Advocate, 2019; and he was named to the American Academy of Attorneys $500M Club; Top 100 Trial Lawyers by the American Trial Lawyers Association since 2007; the Nation’s Top One Percent by the National Association of distinguished Counsel; Southern California SuperLawyer since 2007, and a Top 50 Orange County SuperLawyer for the past 13 years.

Chase says, “I used to be the little guy. I come from humble beginnings. Maybe that’s why I have a chip on my shoulder for these big corporations who pick on people like the me 50 of years ago.”