Skip to content

Vince practices nationwide in cases involving products liability, toxic torts, environmental issues, and employment law. He has tried, managed, and settled hundreds of personal injury and employment cases across the nation. He has litigated cases involving asbestos, silica, pharmaceuticals, and environmental contamination, in addition to transportation and general product liability cases.

As a former in-house counsel with an international logistics company, Vince has a unique understanding of issues relating to accidents involving commercial freight carriers, including catastrophic injuries, sympathetic plaintiffs, unsympathetic drivers, EMRs (a/k/a black boxes), and bodily injury and property damage reserves.

Vince served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Army and was awarded the Bronze Star Medal while serving in Iraq from 2004 to 2005.

Environmental litigation experience.

Vince leads RDM’s Environmental Law team and has represented clients in civil and regulatory cases brought under CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, and Clean Air Act for nearly 20 years. Let Vince and the team at RDM bring their environmental litigation experience to your case.


  • University of Missouri-Kansas City

    Juris Doctor 2000

  • University of Missouri-Kansas City

    Bachelor of Arts 1997


  • State of Kansas
  • State of Missouri
  • U.S. District Court District of Kansas
  • U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri

& Awards


RDM's Knowledge Blog Posts by Vincent E. Gunter

RDM attorney Vincent Gunter successfully filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a client at the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, MO. Photo by Cat Craig.

Rasmussen Dickey Moore attorneys, led by member attorney Vincent Gunter, successfully prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a client in early June. The case began when Plaintiff filed a negligence claim and a premise liability claim, alleging that exposure to asbestos at a high-rise office building in the late 1970s caused her to develop mesothelioma.

RDM’s client moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity from suit under the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. As part of our client’s argument that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was controlled by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law, our client produced several insurance policies that provided additional Mesothelioma Benefits Endorsement in order to establish it had the requisite coverage in place as required by the statute.

Plaintiff opposed our client’s motion by filing a series of responses, including a motion to strike the client’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that it did not comply with Rule 74 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also argued that our client’s insurance policies are hearsay, and to be admissible, the foundation affidavit authenticating the policies must satisfy Missouri’s business records hearsay exception codified in RSMo. § 490.680.

Relying on CACH, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W. 58 (Mo. banc 2012), Plaintiff argued that neither RDM’s client nor its insurance agent could authenticate the insurance policies because they were drafted by another company. The Court overruled all of Plaintiff’s arguments and objections.

Regarding Plaintiff’s hearsay argument, the Court held that insurance policies are not hearsay because they are written contracts that memorialize the fact of a legal agreement and, therefore, fall outside the definition of hearsay. The statute Plaintiff relied on is for “business records” that would otherwise be hearsay. The Court explained that if a document is not hearsay, an authentication affidavit does not need to satisfy the requirements of RSMo. § 490.680.

The Court further found that our client’s insurance agent may authenticate the policies because, as he stated in his affidavit and deposition, he has personal knowledge of the policies from his role as our client’s agent in obtaining the policies and advising our client throughout the process.

Plaintiff also challenged the validity of the insurance policies themselves. The Court rejected these arguments and ruled that the undisputed facts showed RDM’s client had a workers’ compensation policy covering claims for enhanced mesothelioma benefits under RSMo. § 287.200.4 during the relevant time period. Accordingly, because Plaintiff was our client’s employee when she claimed exposure to asbestos, and that our client had a policy for enhanced benefits for mesothelioma, our client was immune from civil liability under the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine.

A Georgia courthouse. The Georgia CVS LLC vs. Carmichael case will be heard in the Georgia Court of Appeals.

On April 14, a three-member panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case that could have nationwide implications for businesses operating in neighborhoods with high crime rates. In Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, the nation’s largest pharmacy chain seeks to reverse a $45 million jury verdict awarded to James Carmichael after he was shot several times in a store parking lot.

CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael: The Case At Hand

A few days before Christmas in 2012, Carmichael had traveled from Alabama to Atlanta to purchase an iPad from a prospective seller. The agreed-upon location was a CVS parking lot. Carmichael invited the prospective seller into his car. When the sale fell through and the seller exited, another person entered Carmichael’s car and pulled a gun, demanding his money. Carmichael was able to grab his own gun and fire two shots before it jammed. The other man returned fire, striking Carmichael in the arm and stomach before fleeing. He was never apprehended. Carmichael believes the seller was an accomplice of the shooter and the transaction was a robbery set-up. The incident was not visible to anyone outside the vehicle.

Could CVS Have Foreseen This Incident?

A key issue at trial was foreseeability. In premises liability cases, a plaintiff seeking to establish foreseeability of a criminal attack generally needs to establish that the incident is substantially similar to prior criminal activities occurring on or near the premise, so that a reasonable company would take precautions to protect its customers from that type of activity. Carmichael presented evidence that there had been two robberies inside the CVS store, with one occurring three weeks before the shooting. The only prior crime in the CVS parking lot was a purse snatching. Carmichael also presented evidence that CVS workers feared for their safety in the dark parking lot because of loiterers. After a nearly week-long trial, the jury returned a verdict of $45 million in damages, allocating only 5% of fault to Carmichael and 95% of responsibility to CVS. The jury did not apportion any fault to the shooter or his alleged accomplice despite them being on the verdict form.

On appeal, CVS argues that the foreseeability evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, citing cases holding that (1) an in-store robbery of a grocery store employee was not substantially similar to an assault of its customer in the parking lot and (2) evidence of crimes in a bar’s parking lot did not show that a dangerous condition existed inside the bar. According to CVS, the prior criminal incidents occurred at a substantially different location and under different circumstances. Therefore, the pharmacy chain asserts, the trial court erred in not granting it summary judgment.

CVS’s Appeal: Was Carmichael an Invitee?

CVS’s appeal contains three additional arguments why reversal is warranted, including that the trial court’s refusal to give a “prior relationship” charge where there was evidence that the prospective seller and shooter had a prior relationship and had acted in concert. At trial Carmichael’s own security expert conceded it appeared the failed electronics sale was a planned set-up to rob Carmichael. In addition, it argues that the jury apportioned zero percent of fault to the shooter for Carmichael’s severe injuries constitutes a fundamental error, making the entire verdict void and unenforceable. Finally, CVS argues that at the time of the shooting, Carmichael was at most a licensee who was owed a lesser duty, which was not breached. In response, Carmichael argues that CVS waived this argument by conceding at trial that he was an invitee, because he intended to shop inside the store after the electronics transaction. But even if he was just a licensee, he maintains that the store still owed him a duty of ordinary care, which included providing adequate security to prevent assaults in its parking lot.

Beyond the Verdict: Effects on Underserved Communities

A decision by the appellate court is expected later this year. Should it affirm the jury’s verdict, the implications for businesses operating in high-crime areas could be severe, putting businesses that are vital to urban communities in an impossible position.

Businesses operating in these areas will undoubtedly have to determine whether they can afford enhanced security measures or risk facing an eight-figure verdict. In addition, insurance companies that insure them will certainly conduct their own reviews to determine whether to increase policy premiums and perhaps whether to cancel coverage altogether, lest they be hit with an excessive eight-figure verdict.

These external costs could likely result in businesses shutting down or simply relocating to safer areas, an unfortunate outcome that would only cause more hardship to underserved urban areas already plagued by food deserts and general disinvestment. Although these economic policy reasons do not constitute legal arguments being considered by the three-member panel, unintended economic consequences will most likely result if CVS is forced to pay $45 million for injuries caused by a shooting inside a car that just happened to have been parked in its lot.

The case caption is Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. James Carmichael, No. A21A0677 (Ga. App. 2021). Read more about the verdict or view an archive of oral arguments.

Equal Justice Under the Law inscription on the United States Supreme Court building.

On March 25, 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled that Ford Motor Company is subject to personal jurisdiction in a state lawsuit alleging injuries from a car accident that occurred in the state, even if the car was manufactured and originally sold in another state. In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al, the Court provided additional clarity in determining if the connection between a plaintiff’s claims and a non-resident defendant’s activities in the forum state are close enough to support specific jurisdiction.  

Before the Court were two separate Ford cases, one from Montana and one from Minnesota, where in-state plaintiffs claimed injuries from allegedly defective Ford vehicles that were designed, manufactured, and originally sold out of state. Ford, a nonresident of both states, argued it could not be sued in either state because the company’s alleged harmful conduct all occurred elsewhere. The cars at issue were re-sold and re-located by consumers to the respective forum states. Ford argued that there must be a causal link locating jurisdiction only in the states where Ford sold the cars, or where the cars were designed and manufactured. Both states’ supreme courts rejected Ford’s argument, holding that the company’s activities had the needed connection to the plaintiff’s allegations that a defective Ford vehicle caused in-state injuries.

Writing for the Court, Justice Elena Kagan rejected Ford’s “causation-only” approach, holding that the connection between the plaintiffs’ claims and Ford’s activities in the forum state is close enough to support specific jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed its 2017 landmark ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, et al, which held that to be subject to specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claims “must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts” with the forum.  Focusing on the word “or,” the Court explained that the requirement of a “connection” between a plaintiff’s suit and a defendant’s activities extends beyond causality. More than one state can have specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, particularly one that has a “non-causal affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy,” i.e. an accident occurring inside the state and that involves a nonresident defendant’s product.

The impact that the Ford Motor Co. decision will have on pending and future personal jurisdiction disputes is uncertain. But there is little confusion that Bristol-Myers remains the law of the land. As the Court explained, “Bristol-Myers … reinforce[s] all that the Court has said about why Montana’s and Minnesota’s courts may decide these cases.” Distinguishing the two casesthe Court pointed out that personal jurisdiction was not proper in Bristol-Myers because there was no connection between the forum state, the defendant’s activities there, and the plaintiff’s claims. Unlike the present case, in Bristol-Myers the plaintiffs were not residents of the forum state, the products did not malfunction in the forum state, and the injuries did not occur in the forum state. What Ford Motor Co. makes clear is that the place of a plaintiff’s injury and residence can determine whether a forum state can exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, even if the product at issue was designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold in other states.  If a state resident is injured by a defendant’s product in the forum state, the state court may entertain the resulting suit regardless of where the product was made or sold.  

Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused.