Toxic Tort

In recent years, companies have been facing a rise in toxic tort litigation, not only in the number of cases, but the complexity of those cases. Wildman Harrold has been a leader in the field of toxic tort litigation for many years. Our Toxic Tort Practice began 20 years ago as an adjunct to our environmental litigation and compliance practice, but quickly developed into an area for which the firm has undertaken a leadership role within the defense bar on a national basis. Wildman Harrold has distinguished itself by immersing itself in the scientific issues of each case. In addition to outstanding trial skills, tactics, and strategies, we have an extensive network of scientific and technical experts with whom we regularly collaborate. Over the last 20 years, we have defended individual, mass-tort, and class action toxic exposure cases filed by consumers, employees, and residents who live near operating facilities, terminals, and disposal sites seeking recovery for damages allegedly caused by exposure to a wide-array of chemicals. We have also defended individual and class action property damage cases alleging negligence, strict liability, nuisance, and trespass based on the presence of our clients’ products or by-products on or near plaintiffs’ properties. We have successfully defended traditional disease and property damage cases as well as cutting-edge theories like medical monitoring, fear of disease, and increased risk of disease. In recent years, we have seen a rise in novel applications of traditional theories such as nuisance and trespass. Recent experience includes the following:

• We prevailed for our clients in a series of state- and nation-wide class actions alleging that the presence of wood pressure treated with chromated copper arsenate (“CCA”) on residential properties has created health risks and has impacted property values. In these “bet the industry” matters, we have been called upon to coordinate the defense of multiple parties and to negotiate with state and federal regulatory agencies. These cases have also involved managing the work of multiple experts and dealing with insurers and the press. In each of the cases in which Wildman Harrold took the lead, class certification was denied, or the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.
• We represented a defendant in a case filed by a group of homeowners alleging that their properties were devalued, and seeking damages for medical monitoring, infliction of emotional distress, fear of cancer, and increased risk of cancer due to the presence of trichloroethylene (TCE) from a nearby metal fabricating facility on their properties. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict which exonerated our client from any punitive damage liability. The jury awarded compensatory damages, but our client did not pay any portion of any damage award.
• We have defended a series of cases alleging injury, fear of injury, and medical monitoring allegedly arising out of the operation of several wood-treating plants. Plaintiffs have been former employees and current and former residents of a nearby communities. Wildman Harrold has defeated class certification of medical monitoring claims, and prevailed at trial on the individual medical monitoring claims of several residents. We have also tried the cancer death claims of several former employees and residents, to satisfactory results.