George P. Helfrich Jr.
Areas of Practice
George devotes his practice to defense litigation in the areas of complex general liability, automobile liability, product liability, liquor liability, trucking and transportation litigation, and construction accidents. He has represented multiple private bus carriers and has handled several commercial vehicle matters, including trucks, taxi and livery services. For more than 30 years, he has handled thousands of casualty cases, resolving them through dismissal prior to trial, settlement or ultimate verdict at trial. George has represented numerous professional organizations, public and private, in the defense of general liability and professional liability cases.
A 1974 graduate of Georgetown University, Washington D.C., George attended Seton Hall University School of Law, achieving his juris doctor in 1977. From September 1977 through September 1978, George was law clerk to the Honorable Marshall Selikoff, Presiding Judge-Civil Division-Superior Court-Monmouth County.
Upon completion of his clerkship, George began his legal career as a civil defense attorney at the law offices of the Honorable Robert C. Pollock.
He honed his skills as a senior trial attorney with the law offices of Minichino and Mautone. Thereafter, George was selected as the managing attorney for the Home Insurance Company in the state of New Jersey. He oversaw Home's litigation department in New Jersey, including the handling of complex litigation as well as administrative and budgeting functions.
Obtained a defense verdict following a six-day jury trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The case involved an alleged slip and fall incident on snow and ice at the insured's commercial property. The alleged injuries included aggravation of prior cervical herniated discs; torn labrums of both shoulders necessitating bilateral surgeries; aggravation of prior TMJ injuries; and aggravation of pre-existing anxiety disorders.
Due to in limine motions made on behalf of the insured, testimony from plaintiff's experts with respect to the aggravation claims was significantly limited, as plaintiff's experts failed to provide the appropriate comparative analysis, as required by New Jersey law. In addition, due to a motion in limine made, testimony relating to an alleged leak from the roof of the building, causing puddles to form and freeze, was barred due to the failure of plaintiff to provide the appropriate expert in that regard. Testimony relating to the slope and width of the walkway where plaintiff fell was barred for the same reasons.
The jury returned a No Cause in under fifteen minutes, finding no negligence as to the insured.
Successfully defended an automobile accident case in which the plaintiff demanded the policy limits of $2 million and alleged potential bad faith against the carrier by obtaining a defense verdict on lack of proximate cause.
Successfully defended an educational institution against a claim of wrongful death of a student as a result of a criminal act upon their property and obtained a judgment of indemnity against the co-defendant security company for all defense fees incurred in defense of the matter. Verdict against co-defendant was $4.3 million.
Successfully defended trucking company against a claim of product liability for the condition of a tire that had been "recapped," and subsequently had failed, with a defense verdict at trial, which withstood appellate review.
Successfully argued at the trial level and affirmed on appeal that our trucking client was not a "manufacturer" or "seller" as defined under the New Jersey Product Liability Act in regard to their business of recapping tires.
Issues involving all aspects of civil litigation including but not limited to pleading practice, discovery devices, motion practice and litigation strategy.
Issues involving indemnification, governmental immunities, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverages .
"How Wise Are You Concerning the Admissibility of Medical Expenses Collectible Under PIP?," Defense Digest, Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2012
The Martindale Hubbell rated attorney list is issued by Internet Brands, Inc. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found here. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.