Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation

January 4th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, News, Tort Webinars, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , |

HB Litigation Conferences presents a CLE-eligible webinar PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation and Regulation On August 26, 2022, yet another PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against a product manufacturer in which it is alleged that since the products contained PFAS and the company marketed the products as environmentally friendly and safe for use by consumers, a proposed class of consumers was deceived into buying the allegedly unsafe products. The lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as there have been over 20 such lawsuits, almost all of them filed in 2022. With the ever-increasing media, political and scientific attention being given to PFAS, the panelists predict that these lawsuits will continue to increase at an exponentially increasing rate moving forward against companies of all sizes that manufacture and supply products. Bringing together almost 20 years of product litigation experience and decades of scientific expertise in the field of chemicals such as PFAS, the panelists will discuss the legal issues that companies are facing from current or legacy uses of PFAS (whether intentional or not) and practical solutions that can be taken pre-lawsuit to understand and minimize risk.  Questions answered: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn’t use the two original types of PFAS, are you at less risk of [...]

Read More

PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella

November 30th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder and Chief Services Officer at CMBG3 Law, where he also chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management and Consulting and ESG practice groups. John is the latest addition to the Editorial Board of Directors for the Journal on 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. PFAS Litigation A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits "It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer goods sector evaluate their PFAS risk and fully understand the legal arguments that plaintiffs could make against companies in litigation." Abstract: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 12,000 man-made compounds. 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 also bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. This [...]

Read More

PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella

November 14th, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Medical Monitoring for Modern Times with Ed Gentle

November 1st, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

PTSD in Mass Torts & Multi-Plaintiff Cases. What attorneys need to know.

August 19th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Employment, Featured On-Demand, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , |

PTSD in mass tort and multi-plaintiff cases. What attorneys need to know. Mass tort claims arise most frequently in man-made and natural disaster catastrophe litigation as well as personal injury, employment, product liability and toxic tort litigation. Frequently, these lawsuits include either primary or secondary allegations of emotional distress. PTSD is one of the most common emotional distress claims alleged within mass tort litigation, as well as allegations of depression and emotional stress (anxiety).  Join an experienced psychiatrist and psychologist who will cover topics relevant to the forensic psychiatric assessment of emotional damages within mass tort and complex litigation.   Agenda Introduction: Defining PTSD. What it is and what it is not. The methodological approach to assessing allegations of emotional distress in mass tort & complex litigation. The importance and the methodology of psychological testing as part of the assessment of emotional distress claims in mass tort litigation. Claimant population screening. Using psychological test instruments to differentiate claimants who require in-depth forensic psychiatric assessment from claimants who do not.  Are all psych tests the same? Types of psychological test instruments we recommend and ones that we do not — and why.   So-called “PTSD Tests.” Do they have a role in forensic psychological assessments? Accuracy and reliability of conclusions derived from psychological test data. Taking a “team approach” to emotional distress claim [...]

Read More

PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler

February 10th, 2022|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Environmental Torts, Insurance, News|Tags: , , , , |

PFAS Science with Jaana Pietari and Jim Fenstermacher and Litigation with Bob Chesler In Part 1 of the episode, we discussed the PFAS from the scientific and environmental engineering perspective. And to do that I was fortunate to have  Jim Fenstermacher and Dr. Jaana Pietari from the global engineering firm Ramboll.  Jim and Jaana have deep experience in environmental remediation involving a variety of contaminants, including PFAS. In Part 2, I am joined by Robert Chesler of Anderson Kill. Bob is a long-time expert on insurance coverage for long-tail and other claims. He's considered a guru in the field, and has represented policyholders in disputes over coverage with insurers for as long as I've known him. It's a serious subject and these are seriously qualified folks. I did my part to make a mockery of scientific terms as I struggled to say the name of this family of chemicals. Fortunately for you my guests were much more linguistically nimble and it is their voices you will hear more of. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, 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 Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to [...]

Read More

Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts

May 20th, 2021|Categories: Environmental Torts, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , , |

Susan E. Brice and Vince Angermeier on Causation in Toxic Torts Abstract Concepts of “substantial factors,” “any exposure,” and “de minimis” contact have long-supported claims brought by toxic tort plaintiffs against manufacturers. They have furthered tort actions against defendants based on the “cumulative expo-sure” theory, particularly in the asbestos arena, even when a single fiber could not be connected to a specific defendant. But a 2017 Seventh Circuit decision dealing with Illinois law is part of a trend toward tightening up these standards. This article discusses the various cases on this threshold issue as the authors ponder whether this is a movement that needs some pushing. Authors Susan E. Brice (sb@nijmanfranzetti.com) is a partner at Nijman Franzetti, LLP. She has litigated state and federal disputes and has counseled clients on complicated scientific issues arising in environmental law, toxic torts, and product liability. Susan works with scientists on matters in the fields of genomics, toxicology, and epidemiology in industries such as chemical manufacturing, energy production, food, agriculture, and real estate. Vince Angermeier (va@nijmanfranzetti.com) is Of Counsel at Nijman Franzetti, LLP, where he concentrates his work on CERCLA, EPCRA, RCRA, and Clean Water Act matters, a practice enhanced by his environmental engineering experience. Vince has assisted on civil litigation, administrative rulemakings, regulatory and compliance matters involving water, solid waste, and [...]

Read More

Mass Tort Emotional & Psychological Claims

October 27th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Featured On-Demand, Mass Torts, Torts-On-Demand-CLE|Tags: , , , , |

Emotional & Psychological Claims in Multi-Plaintiff Toxic Tort Litigation: What attorneys need to know about the scientific and medical aspects of these injuries.  On-Demand | Recorded October 27th, 2020 ON DEMAND WEBINAR REGISTRATION Emotional injury claims often arise in toxic torts due to exposure to asbestos, mold, carbon monoxide, and environmental contamination, to name a few. And now, as large swaths of the nation are often engulfed in flame, what physical and emotional effect might manifest from prolonged smoke inhalation? Determining the validity of these injuries and any causal connection is difficult. It requires careful study by truly qualified experts often from various disciplines. When psychological harm exists, it can be debilitating. There is much an attorney should know when wading into these types of claims. How often is there a legitimate injury? What different types of injuries are there? What should attorneys know when working with or challenging psychological experts? How is causation proven or disproven? How are damages determined? Join our panel comprising a forensic neuropsychologist, an industrial and occupational physician, a forensic psychiatrist, and an experienced mass tort practitioner as they share their insights and experiences. Key Points Understanding the different types of psychological injury claims. Understanding the differences between objective injuries that are easy to identify and distinguish, versus subjective injuries such [...]

Read More

Heavy Metals in SFO Bay

October 16th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Legal Writer Law Street Media San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase. On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law. Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation. Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, [...]

Read More

CNN — Jury returns $2 billion verdict against Monsanto for couple with cancer — the biggest so far

June 5th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , |

[one-half-first] [/one-half-first] [one-half] A California jury returned a $2.055 billion verdict against Monsanto and their popular weed killer, Roundup. “The verdict in Oakland includes more than $55 million in compensatory damage and $2 billion in punitive damages.” The septuagenarian plaintiffs, represented by attorney Michael Miller of The Miller Firm, were a California couple that said long-term exposure to Roundup caused both of them to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that usually cannot be traced back to a source according to the American Cancer Society. The particular carcinogen in Roundup is glyphosate, which the EPA has stated was not a carcinogen in a 2015 assessment, which contradicts WHO’s statement that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans”. While a Monsanto spokesperson previously denied any manipulation, a jury found that a series of texts and emails between Monsanto and the EPA that proved Monsanto culpable of manipulating science. [/one-half] Read the complete post by Michael Nedelman on CNN.com here!

Read More

Cognitive Shortcuts: Assessing Case Value & Litigation Risk with Homer Simpson and Spock

September 11th, 2018|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Environmental Torts, HB Tort Notes|Tags: , , , , , , |

By Jeff Trueman, Esq. Mediator The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, “What’s the case worth?” Although lead paint litigation may be going through some changes, it remains a mature tort where enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a “heuristic” – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control. Underneath the games of litigation “chicken” that are the hallmark of settlement negotiation, heuristics lead to erroneous valuations and assessments of risk. Although more than one hundred heuristics exist, approximately 15-20 occur commonly in the context of settlement negotiations. It is easy for potential clients to employ a heuristic similar to the illusion of control by imagining a connection between something they desire, such as a favorable case outcome, and the past successes of their prospective lawyer. Representative and confirmation biases influence how we connect “model” to “outcome.” When differences over case value intensify, litigators return to threats [...]

Read More
Go to Top