Jack O. KalminkJack Kalmink Clark Hill
Jack O. Kalmink
Jack O. Kalmink practices primarily in the area of litigation, where he has experience in bench and jury trials in both state and federal courts. His responsibilities cover class action, numerous antitrust matters such as copyright and tobacco litigation, business and commercial litigation in such diverse areas as aircraft accidents, product liability, personal injury, environmental contamination, industrial accidents, chemical exposure, motor vehicle accidents, commercial warranties, transportation litigation including freight loss and damage claims, shareholder disputes and real estate controversies. He also has extensive experience in dealer, distributor and manufacturers’ representative disputes. He is primarily responsible for the defense of product liability claims made against major national and international food producers and processors. The claims are usually for personal injuries resulting from serious food contamination or container failures, such as exploding jars and bottles.
Jack has been honored as one of Michigan's Top Lawyers in Litigation by dbusiness, Detroit's premier business journal.
Jack Kalmink and Mary Kalmink represent a long-standing client of the firm who, along with other investors, invested $13,000,000 in a building project in Texas. As an inducement to get the client to make this investment, two of the investors signed Personal Guarantees for a total of $5,000,000. The project failed and the lenders foreclosed on the property. The client sought to recover on the Personal Guarantees to recoup some of its losses. The investors refused to pay on the Personal Guarantees, so Jack and Mary Kalmink filed lawsuits on behalf of their clients in federal courts in Phoenix and San Diego where the investors lived. The San Diego investors filed a motion to dismiss the case as a matter of law. Mary Kalmink drafted the briefs in response to the motion to dismiss. The Judge issued a written opinion, denying the investors’ motion, thus allowing the lawsuit for $2.5 million to proceed in San Diego, and precluding a similar motion in the Phoenix lawsuit.