NC Personal Injury Attorneys Setting the Standard

Attorneys

Richard L. Pinto

Partner (Member)

Rick Pinto has been engaged in a varied civil litigation practice for 29 years. His practice includes personal injury/wrongful death claims, construction claims, motor carrier claims, product liability litigation, insurance (both defense and coverage), and commercial litigation. While a majority of his work involves representing defendants, both individual and corporate, he also represents plaintiffs on commercial claims, as well as in serious personal injury and medical malpractice claims. He has tried over 200 cases to verdict, and practices in the state and federal courts in North Carolina. He has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, has been selected as a North Carolina Super Lawyer® (in Insurance Coverage) 2006–2010, as one of the Best Lawyers in America® 2006-2011, North Carolina Super Lawyer® Corporate Counsel Edition (Insurance Coverage) 2010, Corporate Counsel® Top Lawyers 2010, and as one of North Carolina’s Best Lawyers®.

Practice Areas:

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Certified Mediator)
Commercial Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Coverage
Insurance Defense
Medical Malpractice
Motor Carrier Litigation
Motor Vehicle Accidents
Personal Injury
Products Liability
Property Coverage Disputes / Special Investigations
Property Damage Subrogation
Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Litigation
Wrongful Death

Bar Admissions:

North Carolina
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina

Education:

Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston-Salem, NC, 1980 – J.D.
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, 1977 – B.A. (Cum Laude)

Sample Reported Cases:

Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. North Main Const., Ltd., 361 N.C. 85, 637 S.E.2d 528 (2006)
Vincent v. Billingsley, 177 N.C. App. 464, 628 S.E.2d 868 (2006)
Koch v. Bell, Lewis & Associates, Inc., 176 N.C. App. 736, 627 S.E.2d 636 (2006)
Red Hill Hosiery Mill, Inc. v. MagneTek, Inc., 159 N.C. App. 135, 582 S.E.2d 632 (2003)
Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Associated Scaffolders & Equipment Co., Inc., 157 N.C. App. 555, 579 S.E.2d 404 (2003)

Membership in Law-Related Organizations:

Greensboro Bar Association
North Carolina Bar Association
North Carolina State Bar
North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys (NCADA)
Defense Research Institute (DRI)
Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel (FDCC)
Counsel on Litigation Management

Miscellaneous:

AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell
North Carolina Super Lawyer® – Insurance Coverage, 2006–2010
North Carolina Super Lawyer® Corporate Counsel Edition - Insurance Coverage, 2010
Best Lawyers in America®, 2006-2011
Corporate Counsel® Top Lawyers, 2010
North Carolina’s Best Lawyers®

Legal Decisions of Interest

  • In connection with a discovery dispute between the parties, the Court of Appeals held that a blanket general objection asserted by the defendants based on “the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or doctrine” was inadequate to effect the intended purpose of the objection. The Court noted that even though [...]In a lawsuit involving a mobile home park tenant assaulted by another tenant, the Court of Appeals stated that although North Carolina law has recognized a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable third-party criminal acts, such a duty did not include a duty to evict a tenant, and although other [...]
  • In a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the parents of a deceased child alleging that defendant doctors were negligent in failing to discover lacerations to the child’s liver at the hospital following a car accident, the Court of Appeals agreed that the parents’ expert witness’ testimony was not improperly speculative, even though the expert used [...]The North Carolina Supreme Court “adopted” the reasoning of the dissenting Court of Appeals judge and hence held that the age of a lawful visitor injured on property naturally occurring (a creek), in and of itself, did not impose a higher standard of care on the property owner, because such a heightened level of care [...]
  • In a product liability action involving a self-propelled wheelchair that caught fire, resulting in the house to catch on fire and burning Plaintiff’s decedent, the Court of Appeals held that the defense of “insulating negligence” (by which a defendant is insulated from liability by an independent act of another) does not apply where it is [...]The Court of Appeals, asserting that it was following established law, declined to allow damages for the loss of a pet dog based upon a strong emotional bond the owners had with the dog, and instead damages were generally limited to the cost of “replacing” the dog, since the Court viewed the dog as merely [...]
  • Although Plaintiff filed the Complaint without it being signed and ordinarily that would result in the action being deemed not to have been properly instituted, Plaintiff’s prompt remedial measures of filing an amended, signed Complaint corrected the deficiency, and the amended Complaint related back to the commencement of the action for purposes of timeliness. Estate [...]

Read More  >>>>    

Office Location

Phone:
336.282.8848
Fax:
336.282.8409
3203 Brassfield Road Greensboro, NC 27410
NC Personal Injury Lawyers