Toxic & Mass Tort

Successful defense in a toxic tort or product liability issue comes from lawyers familiar with the full scope of chemicals and substances that may fall within a claim. With experience representing manufacturing, mining and smelting clients, as well as municipalities and government agencies, Squire Sanders’ toxic tort practice dates from the 1970s. We have defended nearly every chemical that is claimed to be hazardous including cases alleging, collectively, more than 100 illnesses and conditions. On behalf of defense groups, we have engaged experts, analyzed medical and environmental issues, formulated case management plans, and orchestrated the briefing and argument of key issues.

Representative matters include:

• In an environmental/property rights case for DuPont, similar to one in which plaintiffs had already obtained royalty payments of approximately US$500,000 a year for decades from another entity, our client was being sued by the same plaintiffs for US$176 million. They claimed that a plume of toxic waste had contaminated 200 surface acres and 400 acres of mineral interests. Our role included working with DuPont’s in-house counsel and staff, local counsel and numerous independent experts. After a multi-week, highly technical trial debating the ramifications of deep-well injections of billions of gallons of hazardous waste, our client received a unanimous defense verdict from a Texas jury. The National Law Journal recognized the Squire Sanders victory for DuPont as one of its “Top Defense Wins.” Because of this case and other successful resolutions, DuPont awarded our firm its prestigious “Meeting the Challenge” award and recognized our “cost-effectiveness in the delivery of legal services.”
• A Squire Sanders lawyer, acting as chair of a joint defense medical committee, coordinated the Daubert/Frye challenge to all eight of plaintiffs’ medical, toxicology and epidemiology experts in a consolidated case involving 74 plaintiffs asserting cancer, autoimmune disease, congenital heart defect and kidney disease claims. After an 11-day hearing, the judge excluded all of plaintiffs’ experts and granted our client summary judgment.
• Securing a trial win for one of the world’s largest petroleum and petrochemical groups in a major chemical exposure case following a six-week jury trial. The seven plaintiffs claimed they were exposed to toxic levels of chemicals while working at a refinery. They sought approximately US$40 million in compensatory damages and up to US$100 million in punitive damages. Our client denied any negligence and proved to the jury’s satisfaction that plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not a result of toxic chemical exposure at the refinery.
• Two years after suit had been filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of 317 plaintiffs alleging property damage, personal injury and medical monitoring claims due to neighborhood exposure to lead from a battery recycling facility, Squire Sanders was asked to develop a new strategy for defense of the cases, develop new experts, file all necessary motions, and assume whatever pretrial and trial role the firm deemed necessary in aid of the existing defense counsel. We were able to obtain a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the exclusion of the intended testimony of the plaintiffs’ key expert witness. After a two-day hearing at which five experts testified, the plaintiffs’ demands were reduced substantially. An agreement to settle all 317 claims was then reached.
• After a federal district court found personal jurisdiction over a foreign mining company, Squire Sanders was hired to obtain a full reconsideration of the court’s opinion or, failing that, to seek an interlocutory appeal. The court granted our motion for reconsideration, pending the outcome of an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the court found it did not have jurisdiction over our client.
• In an action filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, Squire Sanders lawyers were lead counsel defending a citizens suit alleging, among other things, property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring and environmental response costs due to exposure to heavy metals. We obtained complete dismissals of 15 of the 73 plaintiffs and complete dismissals of the emotional distress, fear of injury, trespass, nuisance and property damage claims. The suit then settled for a very reasonable amount.
• Operating under joint defense agreements, Squire Sanders has defended as many as 31 chemical companies in a single personal injury case. In one such case, we were able to obtain summary judgment on behalf of all clients who had not been voluntarily dismissed. In another case, in which we represented 28 defendants, dismissals were obtained for 23 defendants and a mere US$150 was paid on behalf of each of the five remaining defendants.
• Obtaining the dismissal, on grounds of venue, of five class actions and hundreds of personal injury actions brought against a major mining and smelting company. The dismissal was affirmed by the intermediate state appellate court.
• Successfully defending hundreds of personal injury actions involving claims of brain and peripheral nervous system damages due to exposure to lead ore concentrate and lead oxide.