Representative Cases for Products Liability Litigation

Whether defending our clients in a single catastrophic injury case or a mass tort action with numerous plaintiffs, our product liability attorneys have repeatedly exhibited the judgment and skill necessary to successfully defend our clients in serious product liability actions.

Clients retain us for a broad spectrum of products liability litigation involving personal injury, property damage and economic loss claims. We have successfully litigated cases involving products manufactured or sold by our clients, including:

  • asbestos-containing products
  • lead paint
  • mold
  • construction equipment
  • construction materials
  • industrial and commercial machinery
  • pharmaceuticals
  • vaccines
  • pesticides
  • medical equipment
  • lighters
  • glass bottles
  • food and beverages
  • exterior insulation and finishing systems
  • shavers
  • athletic equipment.

Our experience in these cases also enables us to effectively counsel clients at the pre-litigation stage. We are able to provide access to skilled experts and offer a critical eye to the "expert" opinions and reports being relied upon by adversaries. Our ability to provide clients with proactive, preventative advice enables them to contain and effectively manage the risk of litigation.

Representative Cases

Back to Products Liability Litigation

  • Krauss v. 3M Company, et al. , No. 190020/12 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.) (granting Bechtel summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that it manufactured, distributed or installed an asbestos-containing product to which plaintiff was exposed, nor supervised or controlled the work giving rise to plaintiff's exposure)

  • Ward v. Affinia Group, et al., No. 10563-09 AS (Super. Ct. Middlesex Co.) (granting summary judgment to manufacturer on the ground that there was no evidence to establish that decedent worked with or around an asbestos-containing product made by the client, notwithstanding affidavit by decedent's son, stating that decedent's shop used the client’s product and that the product was dusty)

  • Burns v. D&B Acoustical et al., No. 2719/09 (Sup. Ct. Schenectady Co. 2011) (dismissing asbestos supplier's claim for conditional common law indemnification against client, an asbestos product manufacturer, on grounds that jury should decide issue and that imputed "knowledge" of an asbestos supplier and product manufacturer is distinct, and that the asbestos supplier failed to proffer evidence that it did not or could not have known about the dangers of asbestos)

  • Wideman v. NYCHA, No.18941/2005 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011) (bifurcating liability and damages issues in a lead paint claim involving brain injury claims by a special education child, after which defense focused on challenge to the reliability of lead paint test results obtained by the Department of Health and obtained favorable settlement)

  • Nostrom v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 15 N.Y.2d 502 (2010), affirming, 59 A.D.3d 159 (1st Dep’t 2009)  (upholding trial court’s summary judgment dismissing deceased plaintiff’s claim that his alleged asbestos exposure was attributable to a general contractor’s purported violation of New York State Industrial Code regulations)

  • Held v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 41 A.D.3d 177 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2007) (upholding summary judgment dismissing Labor Law claims on behalf of deceased plaintiff who contracted mesothelioma allegedly due to asbestos exposure)

  • Taylor v. Cornell Healthcare Group, No. ESX-L-4672-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. Essex Co. 2004) (Defense verdict for medical equipment company accused of negligence, which allegedly caused multiple leg fractures requiring surgery; pre-trial demand was $750,000)

  • Paniccia v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 297 A.D.2d 366 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2002) (reversing judgment for one plaintiff based on jury verdict unless plaintiff accepted reduction of pain and suffering awards from $3 million down to $1.25 million and directing new trial on damages for other plaintiff because insufficient evidence concerning fear of cancer claim)

  • Aguirre v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 286 A.D.2d 658 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2001) (reversing judgments and directing new trial of both liability and damages on three railroad workers’ claims of injurious exposure to asbestos)

  • Buckley v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 521 U.S. 424 (1997) (affirming verdict firm obtained at trial in lead case for over 100 asbestos claims and handled through Second Circuit affirmance; firm received the case, and over 40 boxes of documents and multiple depositions, only a few weeks before trial)

  • Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 72 F.3d 1003 (2d Cir. 1995) (setting aside as excessive $12 million jury verdict for the pain and suffering of a pipe insulation worker who died after contracting mesothelioma, finding that the maximum sustainable award was only $3.5 million)

Back to Products Liability Litigation