Hepler Broom, LLC Logo

KATHLEEN S. HAMILTON

Partner

khamilton@heplerbroom.com

314-480-4184

St. Louis, MO

 

Education

  • University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, J.D., 2002
  • University of Notre Dame, Bachelor of Arts, 1999

Admissions

  • Illinois
  • Missouri
  • U.S District Courts for the
    • Western District of Missouri
    • Eastern District of Missouri
    • Southern District of Illinois

Practice Description


Kathleen S. Hamilton focuses her practice on general trial litigation and insurance defense, including:

  • Premises Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Construction Law
  • Complex Tort Litigation
  • Catastrophic Trucking Litigation

Ms. Hamilton has represented clients in matters before state and federal courts in both Missouri and Illinois and has tried cases to conclusion as both lead and assistant counsel. She also represents clients in appeals and has successfully argued in front of the Missouri Supreme Court and Missouri Courts of Appeals for the Eastern, Western, and Southern Districts; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Second Judicial Circuit; and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

Bar/Professional Associations


  • American Bar Association
  • Illinois State Bar Association
  • The Missouri Bar
    • Supreme Court’s Joint Commission on Women in the Profession

Awards, Honors & Distinctions


  • Missouri & Kansas Super Lawyers
    • Rising Star (2009-2016)

Published Legal Writing


  • Right to Intervene Under Missouri Statute Section 537.065 is Not Retroactive to Trials and Contracts Pre-Dating the 2017 Amended Statute – Even if Judgment Was Not Yet Entered. HeplerBroom Blog (October 29, 2019). (This blog post can be read here.)
  • Change to Law Governing the Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony. HeplerBroom Blog (September 7, 2017). (This blog post can be read here.)

Legal Lectures & Presentations


  • “Effective Settlement Negotiations and Arbitrations,” National Business Institute (St. Louis MO, 2016).
  • "Stacking Insurance Coverage and Uninsured Motorist Setoffs,” Advanced Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Law, National Business Institute (St. Louis MO, 2016; Collinsville IL, 2014).
  • “Defense Strategies for Minimizing Reasonable Value of Medical Services after the Affordable Care Act,” Calculating Medical Damages in Injury Settlements Post Affordable Care Act, National Business Institute (St. Louis MO, 2015).
  • “Procedural Tips and Techniques for Handling Subrogation, Rights of Reimbursement and Liens,” Advanced Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Law, National Business Institute (Collinsville IL, 2014).

Representative/Recent Case Results


  • Secured summary judgement for client in case where plaintiff sued for personal injuries following hand amputation while operating machinery as part of his employment. The part manufactured by client was not defective and was not designed specifically for use in the machine at issue. Therefore, court found defendant was entitled to summary judgement. (Missouri law, does not impose liability on the manufacturer of a non-defective component part when the end product was designed, assembled, and sold by other entities.) [Timothy Farkas v. Overton Industries, Inc., et al.; No. 4:17-CV-761 RLW (December 2018)]
  • Secured summary judgment for client in case where plaintiffs alleged damage to their multimillion-dollar home arising from the design and installation of an inadequate heating and cooling system in their indoor poolroom. Plaintiffs sought damages based on the alleged breach of contract to perform punch list work at the home after the design and installation of the system occurred. Because the contract at issue expressly disclaimed any liability for work done prior to its execution, and because the undisputed material facts demonstrated that the system was designed and installed in the home prior to that date, the Court found defendant was entitled to summary judgment. [Harold Lewis, et al. v. Sigman Indoor Climate Solutions, et al., St. Charles County, Missouri Circuit Court; No. 1711‑CC00994]. Summary judgement affirmed upon appeal. [Harold Lewis, et al. v. Sigman Indoor Climate Solutions, et al., St. Charles County, Missouri Circuit Court; No. 1711‑CC00994, ED 106899]
  • Secured summary judgment for client in case where plaintiff sued co-employee for plaintiff’s workplace injuries. Judgment was affirmed by Missouri Supreme Court, which found co-employee’s negligence was result of breach of employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace; thus, negligence was the employer’s, not the co-employee’s. [Matthew Fogerty v. Larry Meyer, Missouri Supreme Court No. SC96030] Ruling in case changed Missouri law regarding co-employee liability and when one co-employee may sue another.
  • Secured summary judgment for client in case where plaintiff attempted to set forth claim of negligence based on client’s alleged failure to ensure plaintiff’s safety or the structural integrity of a stairwell; court found client owed no legal duty to plaintiff and that the condition of the stairwell was open and obvious as a matter of law. [Joseph Moore, et al. v. Burton Brothers General Contractors, et al., City of St. Louis, Missouri Circuit Court; Case No. 1422-CC08898 (November 29, 2017)]
  • Secured summary judgment for client based on “acceptance doctrine.” At the time Plaintiff was injured, the general contractor had already accepted client’s work and resumed control over the physical area at issue. [Joseph Zygler v. Hawkins Construction & Flat Work Contracting, Co., Inc., St. Louis County Circuit Court, Missouri, Case No. 16SL-CC00847 (October 30, 2017)] Summary judgment upheld on appeal [Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District, ED108543)].

For a complete list of Representative/Recent Case Results, click here.

HeplerBroom LLC COVID-19 Response

HeplerBroom has been diligently working on its response and continuity plan to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to keep the health and safety of our employees, their families, and our clients as our top priority.

To help ensure everyone's continued health and well-being, effective March 17, 2020, all attorneys and staff began working remotely. We continue to assess the situation and will return to our physical offices when appropriate.

To ensure this, the firm has identified essential personnel in each office who will make certain that critical firm functions that cannot be done remotely continue to be handled. We have put in place protocol for those essential personnel to make sure they are keeping healthy per the CDC cleaning and sanitizing recommendations. All teams have back-up personnel and procedures that we will follow to make sure all deadlines are met and clients receive the same great service and work product that we have always been proud to provide.

HeplerBroom's IT department has been working hard to make sure all remote employees are set up with equipment and access from home to limit disruption to our clients. Maintaining security and confidentiality has remained, and will continue to remain, at the forefront of all processes and procedures, at all levels throughout the firm.

The firm has created emergency communication measures to communicate any changes to this plan to employees and are communicating on a regular basis with any and all new resources and helpful information during this uncertain time.

During these fluid and unpredictable times, HeplerBroom will continue its commitment to great service and results for our clients, all while keeping safe and healthy.

Wishing you and your families good health.

Read More >