Defense of Toxic Tort Lawsuits
Worked on defense team of Fortune 300 company in toxic tort cases of national importance regarding eastern Kentucky Superfund site. Wrote briefs leadings to complete dismissals and establishing significant defense precedents in federal cases regarding the statute of limitations, discovery rule, and enforceability and interpretation of terms of releases in toxic tort actions.
Blanton v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 99 F.Supp.2d 797 (E.D. Ky. 2000). Click HERE to view the decision.
Luttrell v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 60 F.Supp.2d 629 (E.D. Ky. 1998). Click HERE to view the decision.
Defense of Toxic Tort and Environmental Action
Successfully defended several manufacturers in toxic tort litigation and continue to serve as common counsel to over 40 potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to defend claims for alleged groundwater contamination by Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. Negotiated resolution with Cabinet on behalf of 40 PRPs to monitor site for next 12 years pursuant to negotiated Agreed Order and Operations & Management Plan.
Bulk Terminals/George O’Bryan v. Atlantic Richfield, No. 2005-CA-002448-MR, 2007 Ky. App. LEXIS 78 (Ky. App. March 9, 2007). Click HERE to view the decision.
Adam v. Spotswood
During pretrial discovery it became clear that the plaintiffs' expert on the contention that the alleged mold exposure caused the infant's autoimmune pancytopenia was not following generally accepted scientific/medical methodology to reach his causation opinion. On behalf of the home owners, we filed a Frye motion to exclude this expert. After extensive depositions of both the plaintiffs' expert and our expert as well as briefing and arguing the issue, the trial judge excluded the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused the infant son's autoimmune pancytopenia. At trial, plaintiffs proceeded on their property damage claim and also on the theory that their infant son's asthma was caused by the alleged mold exposure in the home.
Following three days of trial, the jury returned a verdict for less than 10% of the claimed property damage and a defense verdict on the asthma claim.
Plaintiffs filed post trial motions seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert on autoimmune pancytopenia. The trial judge affirmed his decision. The plaintiffs then took an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the plaintiffs' expert's testimony that mold caused autoimmune pancytopenia.