Katherine Scott Strawbridge

Practice Details

• Payment Information
  Accepted Credit Cards

  American Express
  Discover
  MasterCard
  Visa
• Firm Information
  Position

  Associate

  Firm Name

  Lewis Wagner, LLP
• Representative Cases & Transactions
  Cases

  Experience: Representative Cases: Defense of trespass, conversion
  fraud claims against utility company regarding scope of utility easements
  Obtained summary judgment on behalf of private l
  owner following allegations from a neighboring property owner.
  Defense of trespass, conversion
  fraud claims against utility company regarding scope of utility easements
  Plaintiff is the owner of property subject to two utility easements held by defendant Utility Company. Utility Company contracted with defendant Tree Company to trim
  remove trees on Plaintiff's property that were interfering with the electrical lines. After several trees were trimmed
  /or removed, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging trespass, conversion
  fraud on the part of the defendants as a result of the work performed on the property. Plaintiff argued the Defendants' actions were done without Plaintiff's consent
  exceeded the authority granted by the easements.
  Lewis Wagner, LLP represented both Defendants
  moved for summary judgment, contending that the Defendants had the legal right to maintain the electrical line on Plaintiff's property pursuant to the easements. The defense further maintained that Plaintiff's consent was not required for the services performed on his property. The Court agreed,
  found that the Defendants had lawfully entered Plaintiff's property
  acted in accordance with the easements in performing tree maintenance for the preservation of the electrical line. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants as to all Counts of Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff did not appeal.
  Obtained summary judgment on behalf of private l
  owner following allegations from a neighboring property owner.
  The plaintiff owned property across the street
  downhill from our client's property in Danville, IN. Our client undertook construction activities on his property, including the addition of commercial buildings
  paved parking lots. Sometime after construction began, the plaintiff alleged that her property began to flood when it rained
  that the flooding caused structural damage to her home. Plaintiff attributed this flooding
  the resulting damage to her property, in part, to our client's construction,
  argued that he was liable under a theory of negligence. On summary judgment, we argued that the common enemy doctrine, which protects those who erect obstructions that affect surface water, precluded the plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff responded by filing her own motion for summary judgment, alleging a series of purported issues of fact. Following oral arguments, the Court agreed that the common enemy doctrine applied. In doing so, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment,
  granted summary judgment for our client.