Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY

Horvitz & Levy has an extensive products liability and toxic torts practice, representing a wide array of manufacturers in various industries, from consumer products to industrial chemicals and equipment. We have participated in numerous precedent-setting appeals in this area, including cases that established the authority of trial judges to exclude expert testimony lacking in foundation and the availability of the sophisticated user defense in failure to warn cases.

We also have an active practice in asbestos litigation, an area that continues to expand in California. While other jurisdictions have adopted reforms to limit disproportionate and unwarranted liability in this area, California has not, resulting in an increase in trial court filings and a new wave of appellate litigation.

As part of our products liability and toxic torts practice, we keep our clients apprised of developments and trends in this fluid area of the law, to assist in formulating an overall strategic approach that will not only help win the case at hand, but protect the client’s long-term interests.

Contact Curt Cutting or Lisa Perrochet for more information about our Products Liability & Toxic Torts practice.

Steele v. Bell-Carter Foods

California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in products liability and warranty action against olive producer.

Read More

Hart v. Special Electric

Horvitz & Levy prevails on statute of repose issue in asbestos lawsuit.

Read More

Menera v. Mega R.V. Corp.

Horvitz & Levy preserves defense verdict in products liability case.

Read More

Hake v. Allied Fluid Products Corp.

Court of Appeal affirms nonsuit on ground that plaintiff's "every exposure" theory was insufficient to prove causation under Kansas law.

Read More

Rudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc

Court of Appeal rejects plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent workers' compensation exclusive-remedy rule in take-home asbestos case

Read More

Lockheed Litigation Cases

California Court of Appeal rules again for the defense in long-running toxic tort litigation.

Read More

Ochoa-Valenzuela v. Ford Motor Company

Ninth Circuit affirms defense verdict in a products liability action arising from a single-vehicle rollover accident.

Read More

Edwards v. Ford Motor Company

Ninth Circuit affirms district court decision that consumer expectations test for product defect does not apply to roof strength in a rollover accident.

Read More

Monje v. Spin Master Inc.

Ninth Circuit affirms trial court’s rulings striking punitive damages and excluding speculative expert toxicological causation opinions in product liability case involving children’s toy.

Read More

Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal

California Court of Appeal reverses $3.6 million in punitive damages in products liability case.

Read More

Acqua Vista v. MWI, Inc.

California Court of Appeal reverses $24 million judgment against pipe supplier in construction defect case.

Read More

Trinity River Lumber Company et al. v. Weaverville Community Services District

California Court of Appeal finds public water district immune from liability for failure of water system to furnish sufficient water to extinguish a fire.

Read More

Murat v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in asbestos exposure case.

Read More

Lockheed Litigation Cases (Group 9)

California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in long-running toxic tort case.

Read More

Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings 4435 TCP Cases (City of Redlands v. Shell Oil Co.)

California Court of Appeal affirms defense verdict for Shell Oil Company in case alleging groundwater contamination.

Read More

Collin v. CalPortland Company

California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in asbestos injury action against joint compound manufacturer.

Read More

Garcia v. ConMed Corporation

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of medical device manufacturer in products liability action.

Read More

O'Neil v. Crane Co.

California Supreme Court holds that product manufacturers cannot be liable for injuries caused by replacement parts.

Read More

Heston v. Taser

Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s reduction of damages award and orders further reduction, leaving defendant responsible for only $150,000 of original $7.6 million award.

Read More

Huitt v. Southern California Gas Company

California Court of Appeal reverses $12.6 million judgment, including $10 million in punitive damages, and directs entry of judgment for defendant in failure-to-warn case.

Read More

Molina v. Shell Oil Co.

California Court of Appeal affirms defense verdict in product defect action against chemical manufacturers, rejecting plaintiffs' attempt to use jury instructions developed for asbestos litigation.

Read More

Collins v. Plant Insulation Company

California Court of Appeal reverses $1.9 million judgment in asbestos action and orders new trial on allocation of fault.

Read More

Walton et al. v. The William Powell Co.

California Court of Appeal reverses $5 million judgment in asbestos case, holding that valve maker is not liable as a matter of law for asbestos that was used in conjunction with its product.

Read More

Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum

California Court of Appeal reverses judgment for plaintiff in asbestos case because jury’s allocation of fault was unsupported by evidence.

Read More

Dee v. PCS Property Management

California Court of Appeal affirms exclusion of expert testimony under California Evidence Code in a residential mold case.

Read More

Lockheed Litigation Cases

California Court of Appeal affirms exclusion under the California Evidence Code of expert testimony concerning the ability of a range of chemicals to cause cancer.

Read More

Rudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc

California Court of Appeal opening brief, arguing that the doctrine of workers' compensation exclusivity applies to claims alleging that an employer is responsible for take-home asbestos exposures.

Read More

Shinedling v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Ninth Circuit brief arguing that manufacturer's warnings about risk of fire on portable radiant space heater were adequate as a matter of law.

Read More

O'Neil v. Crane Co.

California Supreme Court brief arguing that a defendant cannot be liable for injuries caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute.

Read More

Johnson v. American Standard

California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for adoption of the sophisticated user defense in California.

Read More

Norris v. Crane Co.

Petition for review to the California Supreme Court, asking the court to revisit the causation and liability standards for asbestos cases in which the plaintiff had minimal bystander exposure to the defendant's product.

Read More

Lockheed Litigation Cases

California Supreme Court merits brief arguing that trial judges have authority under the California Evidence Code to exclude from the jury's consideration expert testimony lacking in adequate foundation.

Read More