• Share
  • Email
  • Print
Mass Torts

Over the last two decades, K&L Gates has established itself as one of the premier national firms in mass and complex tort litigation. Because of our firm’s diverse client base, we understand that every client has different litigation goals and we work with each one to develop a customized strategy to achieve those goals.

While each individual may have a different philosophy regarding discovery, trial, and settlement, every client wants to minimize the risk of a trial, control defense costs, and eliminate surprises. Whether a client has the occasional claim or thousands pending throughout the country, K&L Gates can provide the appropriate counsel. With the client’s needs in mind, our lawyers coordinate the defense to ensure the client’s preferred strategy is followed at every level.

K&L Gates has re-shaped the law by advancing novel legal theories that were the result of coordinated strategies put into place from the filing of the initial pleading to trial. After years of representing multiple clients in nearly every state, we have developed one of the most highly experienced, and successful, national teams in mass and complex tort litigation. Our lawyers are not only in the courthouses every day, but also working with clients to develop legal strategies that can minimize the risk of trial while creating opportunities to resolve claims reasonably and expeditiously. Put simply, there is no other law firm that has the same experience or level of success across the country. K&L Gates’ Mass and Complex Tort team can help you identify problem cases early, manage costs, and allocate the appropriate resources to each case.

Our team has represented multiple clients in thousands of cases over the last several years. In the context of that representation, we have:

  • Tried cases to verdict in 15 separate asbestos cases in jurisdictions such as California, New York, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
  • Started trial in numerous other claims in the same jurisdictions as well as others including: Connecticut, Alabama, West Virginia, Ohio, and Louisiana.
  • Argued appeals before the 2nd Circuit, 3rd Circuit, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit, , 8th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 11th Circuit Courts.
  • Argued appeals before the highest courts of California and Pennsylvania.
  • Argued appeals before the intermediate level appellate courts of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
  • Testified in Congress in connection with federal asbestos litigation reform legislation matters.

Over the years, we have assisted many clients in connection with mass and complex tort claims. Whether those clients have ten claims or tens of thousands of claims, K&L Gates has provided sound legal advice to help those clients achieve their goals. Those clients include:

  • A manufacturer and distributor of industrial and residential equipment, particularly valves, pumps and boilers
  • A manufacturer of electrical distribution and control equipment
  • A manufacturer of glass, coatings, chemicals and fiberglass products
  • A manufacturer of friction material products (Trial Counsel)
  • A manufacturer of aluminum products
  • A manufacturer and distributor of cast, extruded, and seamless industrial piping, fittings and valves in many alloys
  • A manufacturer of stainless and specialty steel 
  • A producer of nuclear fuel products
NameTitleOfficeContact
Partner
P +1.415.249.1011
Practice Area Leader - Litigation
P +1.412.355.6538
Partner
P +1.206.370.8311
Partner
P +1.412.355.6235
Counsel
P +1.312.807.4277
Partner
P +1.305.539.3324
Partner
P +1.212.536.3969
Associate
P +1.412.355.7417
Of Counsel
P +1.843.579.5637
Partner
P +1.310.552.5042
Associate
P +1.412.355.7420
Partner
P +1.212.536.3994
Partner
P +1.412.355.6361
Partner
P +1.412.355.8612
Associate
P +1.412.355.6448
Partner
P +1.843.579.5644
Partner
P +1.973.848.4064
Partner
P +1.617.261.3179
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.8231
Of Counsel
P +1.412.355.6498
Counsel
P +1.973.848.4149
Associate
P +1.412.355.7440
Associate
P +1.212.536.4007
Partner
P +1.412.355.8644
Partner
P +1.617.261.3120
Partner
P +1.973.848.4044
Associate
P +1.412.355.8658
Partner
P +1.305.539.3357
Managing Partner, Houston Office
P +1.713.815.7353
Partner
P +1.412.355.6700
Of Counsel
P +1.212.536.4011
Partner
P +1.412.355.6767
Partner
P +1.212.536.4852
Partner
P +1.617.951.9127
Associate
P +1.412.355.8245
Of Counsel
P +1.206.370.7663
Partner
P +1.412.355.8926
Partner
P +1.973.848.4053
Partner
P +1.412.355.6443
Partner
P +1.412.355.6493
Of Counsel
Partner
P +1.206.370.7955
Partner
P +1.305.539.3336
Associate
P +1.412.355.7454
Managing Partner, Pittsburgh Office
P +1.412.355.6758
Partner
P +1.412.355.8617
Partner
P +1.412.355.8385
Partner
P +1.412.355.6343
e-DAT V Lawyer
P +1.206.370.5781
Partner
P +1.412.355.6284
Partner
P +1.206.370.7804
Partner
P +1.412.355.8365
Partner
P +1.412.355.8314
Partner
P +1.973.848.4132
Of Counsel
P +1.206.370.8386
Associate
P +1.412.355.8928
Partner
P +1.617.261.3160
Managing Partner, US
P +1.412.355.6219
Partner
P +1.412.355.6397
Showing 1-10 of 11 results
1 | 2   Next >
Obtained defense verdict after three-week trial for equipment manufacturer in wrongful death action involving asbestos exposure in paper mills. Adams v. John Crane, Inc. and Crane Co., State Court of Chatham County, Georgia, Civil Action No. STCV10-3924-FO.
Obtained defense verdict after four-week trial for equipment manufacturer in wrongful death action involving asbestos exposure on Navy ships. Hicks v. Crane Co., et al., Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, PA., No. 2167.
Obtained defense verdict after three-week trial for equipment manufacturer in wrongful death action involving asbestos exposure on Navy ships. Tucholski v. Crane Co., et al., Erie County Supreme Court, New York.
Obtained favorable decision in 11th Circuit holding that, under Georgia law, plaintiff failed to establish causation against product liability defendant where alleged harm-causing product was made and sold by others and used with defendant’s product post-sale and where defendant’s product did not require the harm-causing product to function. Thurmon v. Georgia Pacific, LLC, No. 14-15703, 2016 WL 3033147 (11th Cir.).
Obtained favorable decisions in 4th Circuit holding that the mere showing that a plaintiff and the defendant’s asbestos product were at some point in the same workplace is insufficient to support the element of causation under South Carolina law. Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., No. 14–2416, 2016 WL 1239102 (4th Cir.).
Obtained favorable decision in the New York Appellate Division holding unconstitutional trial court order that attempted to implement procedures for assessing punitive damages in New York County asbestos claims. In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (All NYCAL Cases), 13 N.Y.S.3d 398 (N.Y. App. Div.).
Obtained favorable decision in the 9th Circuit upholding defendant’s right to remove state-court toxic tort claim to federal court on “federal officer” grounds. Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.).
Obtained favorable decision in the 2nd Circuit upholding defendant’s right to remove state-court toxic tort claim to federal court on “federal officer” grounds. Cuomo v. Crane Co., 771 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.).
Obtained favorable decision in the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversing verdict for plaintiff upon finding that plaintiff’s expert’s “every exposure” causation testimony was insufficient to establish causation in a toxic tort case under Pennsylvania law. Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply, 107 A.3d 146 (Pa. Super.).
Obtained favorable decision in the Massachusetts Court of Appeals upholding award of summary judgment to defendant sued on theory that it could bear legal liability for an asbestos product it neither made nor sold if that product was “foreseeably” used with its own by the buyer. Whiting v. CBS Corp., 982 N.E.2d 1224 (Mass. Ct. App.).