Photo of Clay A. Guise

Clay A. Guise Member

Areas of Practice

Industries

Bar Admissions

  • Michigan
  • Ohio

Education

University of Michigan, J.D., cum laude

University of Texas , M.P.Aff.

  • LBJ Fellowship
  • Phi Kappa Phi

Williams College, B.A., cum laude

  • with honors

Clay Guise is a trial attorney whose practice focuses on commercial and product liability litigation. He has tried cases in California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington, and has briefed and argued appeals in numerous state courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Guise also practiced at Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease in Columbus, Ohio and Feeney, Kellett, Wienner & Bush in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Ford Motor Company, Superior Court for King County, Washington.  Jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Ford in a re-trial of a product liability case involving allegations that a recalled vehicle caused a fire that destroyed a home and its contents.

  • Westgate Ford Truck Sales v. Ford Motor Company, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio.   Jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford in a re-trial of a breach of contract, certified class action involving more than 3,000 Ford medium and heavy truck dealers.   The first trial had resulted in a $2 billion judgment against Ford.
  • The Standard Fire Ins. Co. et al.  v. Ford Motor Company, 723 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2013).   Briefed and argued appeal.   The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to Ford based on the application of Michigan’s choice of law rules to find that Tennessee’s statute of repose barred the plaintiffs’ claims.  
  • Barbie Nolte v. Ford Motor Company, Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri. Jury returned a defense verdict in favor of defendant automobile manufacturer in a product liability trial involving injuries suffered after a post-collision fire alleged to be the result of a defectively designed Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.
  • Linert v. Ford Motor Company, Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio. Jury returned a defense verdict in a product liability trial involving injuries suffered by a police officer following a crash.
  • Ayala v. Ford Motor Company, Circuit Court for St. Louis City, Missouri. Jury returned a defense verdict in a product liability trial involving wrongful death and personal injury claims.
  • Clarendon Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company, Imperial County Superior Court, California. Lead trial counsel. Jury returned a defense verdict in a product liability trial despite evidence the vehicle at issue was included in a recall.
  • Polowsky v. General Motors, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania. Jury returned a defense verdict in a wrongful death, product liability trial.
  • Baranofsky v. Ford Motor Company, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania. Jury returned a defense verdict in a product liability trial involving personal injury and property damage claims.
  • St. Clair County v. Ford Motor Company, St. Clair County Circuit Court, Illinois. Jury returned a defense verdict in a state-wide class action trial involving claims regarding the suitability of Crown Victoria Police Interceptors for police work.
  • Newton v. Ford Motor Company, et al. Jackson County Circuit Court at Kansas City, Missouri. Jury returned a defense verdict in a product liability trial involving death of police officer and injuries to a passenger in a police car.
  • Eavy v. General Motors, et al., Genesee, County Circuit Court, Michigan. Jury returned a defense verdict in a wrongful death, product liability trial.
  • Burnquist v. Gold Star Jewelers, Tenth District Court of Appeals, Franklin County, Ohio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and judgment of the trial court following a bench trial.
  • Lulgjuraj v. Emerald Landscaping & Design, et al., 1999 WL 33435965 (Mich App 1999). Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Complaint because defendant was not properly served before expiration of statute of limitations. Michigan Supreme Court denied application for leave, 461 Mich. 1000 (2000).
  • Cross-Douglas v. Ford Motor Company, 2001 WL 691226 (Mich App 2001). Plaintiff claimed severe injuries from an accident at a loading dock. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary disposition in favor of Ford based on the open and obvious doctrine.
  • Smith v. Ford Motor Company, et al., (Mich App). The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Ford's motion to change venue finding this determination was governed by statute and the location where plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred.
  • Johnson, et al. v. General Motors, et al., (Mich App). The Michigan Court of Appeals granted owner's and construction manager's application for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for summary disposition.
  • Brownlee v. General Motors Corporation, 2005 WL 2086139 (Mich App 2005). The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision granting summary disposition regarding plaintiff's personal injury, premises liability claims.
  • Auto Club Ins. Ass'n a/s/o Marinelli v. Ford Motor Company, Livingston County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court reversed the District Court's denial of Ford's motion for summary disposition based on the economic loss doctrine.

Memberships & Involvement

  • Ohio State Bar Association
  • State Bar of Michigan