Emerging Litigation Podcast
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella
These stubborn chemicals are everywhere. But when they find their way into products, shouldn't someone tell consumers? Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are a family of more 12,000 manmade compounds. That's a huge family. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by Dupont and Scotchgard produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. New consumer lawsuits seeking millions in damages are targeting oral hygiene products -- like a recent case involving dental floss -- cosmetics, apparel, and food packaging. Listen to my interview with environmental lawyer John Gardella of CMBG3 Law who discusses why PFAS concern citizens, media and legislators, what legal risks corporations face, and why we're seeing a surge in consumer fraud litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella John Gardella is a Shareholder and recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Tennessee. A seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts, John is the Chair of the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups. His thought leadership and predictive risk abilities with respect to PFAS [...]
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle
Medical Monitoring for Modern Times: Attorney and court-appointed neutral Ed Gentle shares his vision for a new paradigm for mass torts. Marissa, a resident of a small town in Kentucky, learned that for some time her drinking water may have been contaminated with so-called "forever chemicals" or PFAS. It's really a collection of chemicals used in products like fire-suppression foam, cookware, stain-resistant sprays, and food packaging. A local public radio reporter covering the story asked Marissa for her reaction. "I was never informed," she said. "And now I'm worried, like, I hope I don't have issues some day in my life." Marissa's concern is like that of many people who find themselves in this situation and is at the center of this episode. When a case like Marissa's goes to court, plaintiffs will seek a ruling that the responsible parties pay for years of medical monitoring. That means they are suing often without signs of an existing injury, and that defendants must pay for something when an injury may not arise. Attorney, author, and court-appointed case neutral, Edgar C. Gentle III, says that approach is antiquated. He outlines a better way in his 2014 essay titled The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long Term Tort Maladies). Now he shares his latest insights on the Emerging Litigation Podcast. Ed Gentle is the Founding Partner of Gentle Turner & Benson, LLC in Birmingham, Ala. He is a Rhodes Scholar and has five college degrees, three in law. He has practiced for nearly four decades, spending 90% of his professional time serving as a neutral assigned by judges to oversee aspects of mass tort litigation and settlements. He has helped create and administer over $2 billion in settlements during the past 25 years. Education: Bachelor of Science, Auburn University, summa cum laude, [...]
Covid Insurance Coverage Decisions with Guest Marshall Gilinsky. Are Policyholders Catching Up?
According to the online Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (CCLT) run by Penn Law there have been more than 2,300 insurance coverage cases filed over denial of claims relating to Covid-19. Restaurants and bars were hardest hit by the pandemic and so led the way in seeking – and being denied – coverage, too. They are also leading the way in suing their insurers. The top five insurers in the defense position are Chubb Limited at #5, then #4 Lloyds of London, #3 Cincinnati Financial, and #2 Zurich. And in the #1 position facing the most coverage suits is Hartford. The insurance industry started off strong when this litigation began, winning the vast majority of the coverage suits. And they continue to do well, scoring with the argument that many of the claims do not involve actual property damage. Government closures don’t cause property damage, they argue. Courts have largely been siding with the carriers – but not all. Policyholders, a tenacious bunch, appear to be chipping away at the body of law in this suddenly expanding category. A recent case involving a New Orleans restaurant against Lloyd’s was penciled into the win column for carriers by a trial court , but an appeals court erased it and wrote the policyholder a narrow 3-2 victory. The appeals court said the language of the policy was ambiguous, and therefore had to be construed in favor of the restaurant. What's it mean? Does this bode well for policyholders? Or can we expect to see, as we did in previous coverage wars, a mixed bag of decisions across the nation? For more on that case and today’s Covid coverage landscape, listen to my interview with Marshall Gilinsky, a shareholder in the New York office of Anderson Kill. Marshall has represented policyholders of various policy types for two decades, including those seeking coverage [...]
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend
The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder with CMBG3 Law and a recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. In his environmental and toxic torts practice, he represents companies ranging in size from small shops to the Fortune 100. John is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend "The arguments in favor of medical monitoring as a cause of action in lawsuits stem from the notion that having such programs funded by allegedly tortious companies promotes the public health benefit of early detection, which in turn often results in lower health care costs to plaintiffs and society at large." Abstract: Medical monitoring as a tort claim is a hot-button issue in toxic torts, personal injury, and product liability litigation. The ubiquity of PFAS chemical compounds and the real and potential harm to health and the environment they create make examination of the medical monitoring debate specific to this burgeoning litigation worthy of individual attention. This article provides an explanation of PFAS, a brief overview of medical monitoring claims, how PFAS medical monitoring claims have impacted the litigation thus far, and what legal cases are pending that could alter the course of traditional medical monitoring litigation in the future. Download the article now!
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) GalleryThe Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Author Edgar C. Gentle III (egentle@gtandslaw.com) is founder and managing partner of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison LLC in Birmingham, Alabama, where he focuses on complex commercial litigation, mass torts, and class actions. He also serves as a court appointed neutral and settlement administrator. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) "States that allow medical monitoring do so when a group of claimants has been exposed to a known hazardous substance, such as lead, or a dangerous product, such as football helmet concussions, or air decompression in an airplane, through the conduct of the Defendant, with the claimants therefore being at increased risk of contracting disease. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years, to see if they contract the disease linked to the toxic substance or dangerous product. Thus, medical monitoring recognizes the long-term harmful nature of toxins and man-made products, thereby matching a remedy with the malady." Abstract: The author administers six mass tort settlements with a medical component, including two with medical monitoring. This article reviews the status and history of medical monitoring, known claimant medical monitoring participation rates, the rationale for the remedy, arguments for and against its implementation, and its execution in practice. The author suggests a more holistic medical monitoring remedy, which includes not only testing/or disease but paying claimants for personal injury when they get sicker later, from a capped fund and under an agreed payment matrix, to provide closure to defendants and class members for claims resulting from toxic substances and product [...]
Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves?
The Author Charlie Kingdollar spent his career as emerging issues officer for a major global insurance company, tracking hundreds of future risks like those discussed in this article. Charlie is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves? "PFAS chemicals are commonly called “forever chemicals,” because once released into the environment they can take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down." "Estimates that the ultimate costs of [these and other] environmental claims will land between $45 billion and $55 billion is terribly low. Maybe I’m missing something (always a possibility). If not, the insurance industry is in for a rude awakening." Abstract: To remain profitable and viable, the insurance and reinsurance industry must rely on estimated forecasts of potential claims many years out to establish an appropriate level of reserves. They rely on data from rating agencies and, based on these estimates, ratchet their reserves up or down accordingly. In past years, major and once unforeseen developments like massive asbestos and environmental litigation provided urgent reasons to cast an especially critical eye on the adequacy of industry reserves. In this article, the author explains why it is that time again. In light of several potentially calamitous emerging global liabilities he reviews here, particularly if they land with the impact he fears they might, the author believes the insurance industry and its policyholders may be in for a jolt a few short years from now. Download the article now!
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Content Partners
