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.
Tinoco v. Michelin North America, Inc.
California Court of Appeal affirms summary adjudication for tire manufacturer in $99.7 million products liability case.
Read MoreCheesman v. Ford Motor Co.
Washington Court of Appeals affirms defense summary judgment in product liability action.
Read MoreWebb v. General Cable
Court of Appeal overturns multi-million dollar jury verdict for lack of substantial evidence in asbestos case
Read MoreSwanson v. The Marley-Wylain Company
California Court of Appeal reverses $5.5 million judgment in mesothelioma case due to instructional error
Read MorePutt v. Ford Motor Co.
Court of Appeal reverses multimillion dollar jury verdict finding Ford 100% at fault in an asbestos case
Read MoreJack v. DCo, LLC
Ninth Circuit holds Ford did not cause decedent’s death by failing to supply a post-sale warning about asbestos
Read MoreMichery v. Ford
Horvitz & Levy obtains affirmance of jury verdict finding Ford’s 1999 Expedition was not defectively designed.
Read MoreBarton v. The Argen Corporation
California Court of Appeal affirms judgment of dismissal in products liability action against supplier of dental alloys
Read MoreSteele v. Bell-Carter Foods
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in products liability and warranty action against olive producer.
Read MoreHart v. Special Electric
Horvitz & Levy prevails on statute of repose issue in asbestos lawsuit.
Read MoreMenera v. Mega R.V. Corp.
Horvitz & Levy preserves defense verdict in products liability case.
Read MoreHake 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 MoreRudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc
Court of Appeal rejects plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent workers' compensation exclusive-remedy rule in take-home asbestos case
Read MoreLockheed Litigation Cases
California Court of Appeal rules again for the defense in long-running toxic tort litigation
Read MoreOchoa-Valenzuela v. Ford Motor Company
Ninth Circuit affirms defense verdict in a products liability action arising from a single-vehicle rollover accident
Read MoreEdwards 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 MoreMonje 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 MoreSaller v. Crown Cork & Seal
California Court of Appeal reverses $3.6 million in punitive damages in products liability case
Read MoreAcqua Vista v. MWI, Inc.
California Court of Appeal reverses $24 million judgment against pipe supplier in construction defect case
Read MoreTrinity 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 MoreMurat v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in asbestos exposure case.
Read MoreLockheed Litigation Cases (Group 9)
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in long-running toxic tort case.
Read MoreJudicial 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 MoreCollin v. CalPortland Company
California Court of Appeal affirms summary judgment in asbestos injury action against joint compound manufacturer.
Read MoreGarcia v. ConMed Corporation
California Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of medical device manufacturer in products liability action.
Read MoreO'Neil v. Crane Co.
California Supreme Court holds that product manufacturers cannot be liable for injuries caused by replacement parts.
Read MoreHeston 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 MoreHuitt 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 MoreMolina 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 MoreCollins 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 MoreWalton 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 MoreSilvestro 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 MoreDee v. PCS Property Management
California Court of Appeal affirms exclusion of expert testimony under California Evidence Code in a residential mold case.
Read MoreLockheed 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 MoreRudolph 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 MoreShinedling 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 MoreO'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 MoreJohnson v. American Standard
California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing for adoption of the sophisticated user defense in California.
Read MoreNorris 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 MoreLockheed 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
