Products Liability & Mass Torts

Part of a trial team that, after a five-week jury trial, obtained a complete defense verdict on behalf of an international automobile manufacturer alleged to have supplied asbestos-containing automotive brakes that caused plaintiff’s alleged mesothelioma. Convinced the jury that not only did the plaintiff not have mesothelioma, but that even if she did, the client’s products were not the cause of her disease. Harrison, et al. v. Volkswagen Corporation of America, et al., 22nd Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis (2016). 

Obtained summary judgment on behalf of company sued in an alleged vinyl chloride exposure case. Litton, et ux. v. APG, Inc. et al., Circuit Court of Baltimore City, (Case No. 24-C-02-005510 (2003))

Successfully defended an automobile insurer in a consumer class-action lawsuit challenging an insurer’s online Personal Injury Protection (PIP) automobile insurance application process by obtaining summary judgment in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Represented a Maryland machinery manufacturer following a catastrophic injury in New Jersey. Plaintiff first filed in New Jersey state court, and the case was removed to federal court. While a motion to dismiss based on New Jersey’s two year statute of limitations was pending in the New Jersey Federal District Court, plaintiff filed an identical case in Maryland, within Maryland’s three-year period of limitations. After obtaining a dismissal order in the New Jersey case, we obtained dismissal of the Maryland case on the basis that it was precluded under principles of res judicata. The Maryland court agreed that an order from the federal court sitting in diversity had the same impact as if a New Jersey state court had issued it, and, under New Jersey law, a dismissal for limitations was a final judgment on the merits, and therefore the Maryland case could not proceed.

Represents national retail stores in range of premise liability cases in state and federal trial courts in Maryland, and have been successful in obtaining favorable settlements or judgments through dispositive motions.

Lead appellate counsel in a consent decree challenge. After extensive negotiations subsequent to a successful remedy challenge in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, obtained the entry of a Consent Decree implementing the remedy at the Centredale Manor Restoration Project Superfund Site. Several PRPs opposed the entry of the Consent Decree on three primary grounds: implementation of a remedy that was arbitrary and capricious; failure of the District Court to conduct meaningful judicial review; and the basis and amount of the contribution of the United States DOD in relation to its alleged contribution to contamination at the site.  After coordinated briefing and argument with the US Department of Justice, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s entry of the Consent Decree in a reported opinion. Emhart Industries, Inc., et al. v. United States Department of the Air Force, et al.,988 F.3d 511 (1st Cir. 2021).

Successfully defeated certification of two class action lawsuits filed by research participants in lead reduction treatment studies against a leading research institution. 

Following a two week jury trial, obtained defense verdict in lawsuit filed against manufacturer of asbestos containing product alleging exposure to asbestos at various construction sites in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Successfully defeated plaintiffs’ appeals of jury verdicts in favor of Research Institution on claims of failure to properly oversee childhood lead research study. 

Mike secured summary judgment on behalf of a multinational manufacturing client in a case alleging that the client’s product caused the plaintiff to develop a fatal form of cancer. Although a statutory repose defense would not have been available to the client under D.C. law, Mike successfully argued that the Court should apply Maryland law and, further, that the Maryland statute of repose provided an absolute defense to the plaintiff’s claims based on the facts and evidence developed during discovery.

Mike has obtained summary judgment on behalf of multiple defense contractors in federal court cases alleging mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. In some cases, Mike successfully argued that the client’s liability could not extend to replacement or auxiliary components or equipment manufactured and supplied by others, but used in relation to the client’s product. In other cases, Mike executed discovery strategies that revealed missing links in the plaintiffs’ product identification evidence that led directly to summary judgment.

Represented Colgate-Palmolive Company in a case alleging the plaintiff developed mesothelioma from using a talcum powder product manufactured by Colgate.  After several years of litigation, we obtained an Order from the Court excluding plaintiff’s proffered expert on product testing/contamination, human tissue fiber burden and specific causation on Daubert grounds.

Represented Colgate-Palmolive Company in a case alleging the plaintiff developed mesothelioma from using a talcum powder product manufactured by Colgate. Successfully obtained Orders from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City excluding any testimony about, or use of, plaintiff’s purported evidence that Colgate’s product was contaminated with asbestos as well as an Order precluding Plaintiff’s expert from testifying about his analysis of the Plaintiff’s pathology tissue. These results caused the Court to enter summary judgment in favor of Colgate.

As national coordinating counsel for a publicly traded manufacturing client, Angi collaborates with a national network of counsel to best defend clients through the changing nature of mass tort litigation against claims brought by organized, interconnected, sophisticated plaintiff firms. This work includes coordinating discovery, company witnesses, documents, trial preparation, and conducting forensic product-line investigations to develop product defenses.  She also spends a significant amount of time developing and working with experts, ensuring that they are inherently familiar with the client, its products, and its strategies.

Angi acts as national coordinating counsel for a publicly traded manufacturing client facing multiple claims in multiple jurisdictions, all asserting claims of exposure to a variety of allegedly hazardous materials.  She provides strategic litigation management, developing and implementing coordinated litigation strategies to control or eliminate the significant exposure posed by such claims and keeps the client in a favorable low visibility posture, securing dismissals or nuisance value resolutions in the high visibility, high stakes mass torts litigation.

CSR, Ltd v. Taylor, 411 Md. 457, 983 A.2d 492 (2009). Court of Appeals affirmed grant of motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that actions of foreign distributor did not constitute purposeful availment under Maryland law. 

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin, 394 Md. 59, 904 A.2d 511 (2006). Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of manufacturer of asbestos-containing products holding that express knowledge of exposure to asbestos products and diagnosis of mesothelioma constituted inquiry notice for purposes of discovery rule and commencement of limitations period for beneficiaries' survival action.

Lead national counsel defending manufacturer of multi-purpose power tools through three waves of mass tort litigation asserting claims for exposure to dust containing a variety of allegedly hazardous materials (asbestos, silica, wood and metal dusts) contained in work pieces and materials manufactured by other companies. Developed comprehensive, coordinated assertion of “no legal duty to warn” defense as a variation of evolving “component parts” and “bare metals’ defenses in state and federal claims asserted in multiple jurisdictions over nearly a decade. This strategy resulted in dozens of dismissals without payment in cases across the country and successful summary judgment decision eliminating litigation in certain jurisdictions and providing a basis for subsequent dismissals without payment in other jurisdictions. (Summary Judgment Decision – Abate v. Advanced Auto Parts, et al., Connecticut Superior Court, Bridgeport (FBT-CV10-6005674)

Lead national counsel defended a plumbing fixture manufacturer in connection with asbestos claims brought in multiple jurisdictions around the country. Conducted a forensic product-line investigation that established product defenses for the client on the merits, pursued indemnity claim against a corporate predecessor based on transaction documentation and successfully established an asset purchases defense to future cases (demonstrating direct liability of corporate predecessor). Obtained dismissals without payment on early asbestos claims on the merits. After unsuccessful indemnity litigation in California State Court with the predecessor, successfully asserted successor liability defense in future cases and obtained summary judgment (opposed by the predecessor) for the client establishing no liability for the client for product line, and direct liability of the predecessor for such claims. (Whelan v. A.O. Smith, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County (L-7161-12AS))

Lead national counsel for an industrial equipment manufacturer sued in multiple asbestos claims in multiple jurisdictions. Conducted a forensic product-line investigation to develop product defenses to the claims on the merits and developed comprehensive and coordinated assertion of the client’s asset purchaser successor liability defense. Thoughtful assertion of defense, after filing, after discovery, by motion or before trial resulted in aggregating track record of dismissals without payment from dozens of cases in most active asbestos dockets nationally. Momentum of accumulated dismissals has diminished new filings for the client and allowed for agreements to dismiss client in new cases, avoiding unnecessary defense expense.

Lead trial counsel in a CERCLA liability trial brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice asserting a “divisibility defense” in connection with dioxin contamination at the Centredale Superfund Site in North Providence, Rhode Island. The trial required over 20 trial days spanning two months and live and deposition testimony of over 20 fact witnesses. The trial involved over a dozen expert witnesses covering complex issues of chemistry, molecule formation and synthesis, chemical fingerprinting, process chemistry, aerial photographic analysis, chemical fate and transport, and environmental engineering. Although the client ultimately did not prevail in establishing this rarely applied defense to CERCLA joint and several liability, the trial resulted in a 186-page opinion, express recognition by the court of “second to none” skilled management and presentation of complex issues, and the defense provided partial basis for subsequent finding of client’s good faith “sufficient care” defense to fines and penalties sought by the U.S. EPA for client’s refusal to comply with a UAO issued to it during pendency of the litigation. (Emhart Industries, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force v. Black & Decker, Inc. (C.A. No. 11-023 S))

Lead trial counsel in a trial against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island challenging the remedy selected by U.S. EPA for the Centredale Manor Superfund Site in North Providence, Rhode Island. This trial also required defense of an enforcement claim and a claim for over $40 million in fines and penalties for the client’s refusal to comply with an EPA Unilateral Administrative Order requiring the implementation of the challenged remedy. The trial involved EPA and client fact witnesses and experts on both sides in the areas of human health and ecological risk assessment, environmental engineering, construction and chemical fate and transport. After 13 bench trial days spanning six months, extensive briefing, and a full day of closing argument, the court found certain aspects of EPA’s remedy selection process to be arbitrary and capricious, remanded remedy to EPA, retained jurisdiction over the case through remedial design in connection with other issues, stayed enforcement of the UAO, and found objective good faith “sufficient cause” for the client to refuse to comply with that order, awarding none of the over $40 million in fines and civil penalties sought by the EPA. (Emhart Industries, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force v. Black & Decker, Inc. (C.A. No. 11-023 S))

When a client became the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission seeking a civil penalty for failure to report a defective product, it came to us to represent it.  Civil penalties have been increasing, and the client was concerned because it had already been the subject of a penalty.  Our knowledge of the law and the process enabled us to negotiate a favorable settlement far below recent settlements.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a significant policy change at one of its public forums.  Through our contacts at the National Association of Manufacturers, we were able to mobilize a working group to oppose the policy and developed an opposition strategy.  As the first step, we drafted a letter to the chairman of the CPSC opposing the policy, and the NAM was joined by 39 trade associations on the letter.  We are continuing with our opposition strategy, which will involve Congressional opposition and potentially litigation.