For several decades, the firm has been heavily involved in the defense of toxic tort cases and the development of national defense strategies, including the representation of clients with mass tort exposures.  In addition to defending individual cases, the firm has coordinated national defense efforts on behalf of major industrial clients, including the development of medical defenses, product testing reports, coordination of discovery responses, preparation of medical and product expert “state-of-the-art” reports, development of computer animations for trial presentation, jury venire research and mock jury presentations, the development of networks of experienced local and regional trial counsel, and the development of integrated electronic databases to manage both documents and a centralized case docket system, including both intranets and extranets. Firm lawyers also have experience as lead and liaison counsel in cases involving large numbers of manufacturing defendants. The firm has been retained in such engagements on behalf of manufacturers or sellers of products containing silica, asbestos, manganese, lead pigment, benzene, PCBs, TCE, and other alleged toxins and hazardous substances, as well as pharmaceutical and chemical products and products with allegedly injurious emissions, such as welding fumes, electromagnetic fields and radioactivity. In addition to its toxic tort product liability cases, the firm represents companies in toxic tort suits alleging injurious exposure to hazardous wastes.

The firm is experienced in litigating the typical issues that have arisen in these tort cases, including proof of causation (e.g., rebuttal or preclusion of “junk science” evidence); statutes of limitations; statutes of repose; state-of-the-art defenses; alternative theories of liability, such as market share, enterprise liability and concert of action; preemption defenses; sophisticated purchaser defenses; risk/utility analyses and defenses; cognizability of causes of action for medical monitoring, phobias, increased incidence of cancer or other injury; and contribution among multiple tortfeasors.

Recent toxic and environmental tort representations have included: 

• representing over several decades numerous manufacturers of asbestos-containing products in defense of tens of thousands of tort claims arising from diverse work sites, both as trial counsel, regional counsel and for at least five manufacturers, as coordinating national counsel;
  
  
• defending claims against manufacturers of welding rods in several thousand cases in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida, alleging various forms of injury alleged to result from exposure to welding fumes; 
  
  
• representing the owner/former operator of former uranium fuel fabrication and plutonium laboratory facilities in a case involving over 400 plaintiffs alleging injuries from radioactive releases;
  
  
• defending multiple claims alleging birth defects from exposures to environmental contaminants allegedly discharged by the firm's client;
  
  
• representing a lender sued for allegedly assisting the borrower to operate a chemical plating company that released chlorinated solvents resulting in property damage and bodily injury;
  
  
• defending claims against a national pharmaceutical company alleging bladder cancer and related illnesses resulting from workplace and residential exposures to industrial chemicals;
  
  
• representing a military defense contractor in connection with a claim asserting the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma resulting from exposure to certain electromagnetic fields generated by naval radar systems;
  
  
• defending a multi-state class action filed against an interstate pipeline company alleging bodily injury, fear of injury, property damage, and the need for medical monitoring as a result of alleged exposure to PCBs;
  
  
• representing a major manufacturer of tear gas in defense of wrongful death actions alleging injury and death resulting from exposure to tear gas;
  
  
• defending a class action alleging personal injury and property damage arising out of alleged exposure to hazardous substances as a result of a 27-car train derailment;
  
  
• defending a class action alleging personal injury and property damage as a result of exposure to petroleum and petroleum-related products resulting from the rupture of a petroleum product's pipeline and contamination of a major inland waterway; and
  
  
• representing two companies in connection with threatened litigation and proposed legislation with respect to claims against former manufacturers of lead pigment used in lead-based paint.

Representative Cases

Representative toxic tort and environmental cases include:

In re Asbestosis and Silicosis Product Liability Cases, Administrative Docket No. 1987-71 (Cambria Cty., Pa.). Represent welding rod defendants in a series of group trials resulting in 788 voluntary dismissals and 17 defense verdicts.

In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation, C.A. No. M-14670 (W.D. Pa.). Defend major independent oil refiner against consolidated class action claims arising from the nation's largest inland oil spill.

Hall, et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox, C.A. No. 94-951 (W.D. Pa.). Defend the owner/former operator of a uranium fuel fabrication facility and a plutonium laboratory in a case involving over 400 plaintiffs alleging personal and property injuries caused by radioactive releases from these facilities.

Marr v. WMX Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. CV-96-00715425 (Sup. Ct., Litchfield, CT). Defend landfill operator from claims of nuisance and violations of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act based on allegations of improper operation of landfill.

Lyle Foringer and Debbie Foringer, his wife, individually, Sara Foringer, a minor, by Lyle Foringer, her guardian and Lyle Foringer and Debbie Foringer, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad Co., Inc., C.A. No. 19920660-Civ (C.C.P. Armstrong Cty., Pa.). Defend class action arising from 27-car train derailment which occurred on April 22, 1990.

Bailey v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., C.A. No. C-1-91-003 (S.D. Oh.). Defend toxic tort claims of residents arising out of alleged discharge of PCBs from gas pipeline.

Kay Bettis, et al. v. Ruetgers-Nease Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:90 CV 0502 (N.D. Oh.). Defend class action asserting diminution of property values and personal injury claims arising out of alleged discharge of chemical waste.

In re Buckeye Pipeline Litigation., C.A. No. DG90-6018 (C.C.P. Allegheny Cty., Pa.). Defend client in matters related to failure of pipeline operated by Buckeye and owned by Buckeye Pipe Line Co., L.P.

City of Philadelphia v. Sherwin Williams, et al., C.A. No. 90-7064 (E.D. Pa.). Defend lead pigment manufacturer in action filed on behalf of all cities in U.S. with population of greater than 100,000 and a "substantial" number of dwellings with lead-based paint present.

Hallager v. Allegheny Ludlum, et al., 1977 No. 322 (C.C.P. Philadelphia, Pa.). Defend manufacturer from claims of respiratory disease from exposures to fumes from stainless steel fabrication plant.

Toole, et al. v. Gould, Inc., et al., C.A. No. CV-89-0576 (M.D. Pa.); Anbrogi, et al. v. Gould, Inc., C.A. No. 88-1205 (M.D. Pa.). Defend class action arising out of contamination from lead battery crushing and processing operations, involving allegations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, and common law claims of strict liability, negligence, nuisance and trespass.

Marie B. Horst, et al. v. Ashland Oil, Inc. et al., C.P. A.D. No. 86-636, No. 87-099, No. 89-498, No. 89-618 (Butler County, PA). Represent oil company in multiple toxic tort and property damage claims filed by neighbors.

Lois Ehigh et al. v. Consolidated Coal, et al., No. 389423 (C.C.P. Cuyahoga Cty., Oh.). Defend waste generator from claims of residents adjacent to a landfill alleging that certain decedents contracted various forms of cancer from inhalation of toxins disposed in the landfill.

Automated Litigation Support

Many toxic tort liability cases present similar or repetitive factual and legal issues, particularly in the context of mass torts. Significant strategic and cost advantages can be achieved by computerizing appropriate information for easier access and use in individual cases, and in groups of cases sharing common elements. K&L Gates has used automated litigation support in toxic tort and other types of cases on behalf of numerous clients.

Computer databases have been created and accessed for plaintiff and witness information, medical histories, document management (including document images and coded document records), communications indexes, full-text transcripts, cases and discovery tracking, brief and memo banks, and legal research. Such databases can easily be accessed by the firm's litigation lawyers and legal assistants, and we can also set up remote access for clients in appropriate circumstances. Computerized presentations may also be used in the courtroom or for settlement conferences as a helpful and persuasive tool.