Toxic tort litigation is dynamic and expanding at a rapid rate. Plaintiffs' attorneys employ increasingly sophisticated means and methods to bring these lawsuits in jurisdictions all across the country. Toxic tort defense is therefore a high-stakes affair. As a result, it is essential that defendants in these cases employ advocates who can provide expertise and sophistication in dealing with such challenges.
Toxic Tort Experience
Hinshaw is a nationally recognized leader in the area of toxic tort defense. Our toxic tort attorneys aggressively defend toxic tort cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States. In an era in which many lawyers seldom go to court, we do so regularly. As a result, Hinshaw's clients are afforded the advantage of our extensive trial experience.
What is more, not only do our peers and opposing counsel recognize us as premier, experienced, and dedicated trial lawyers, but our familiarity with the inner workings of the many courts in which we practice enables us to mount defenses that take into account the unique qualities of each particular court. Our strong relationships with court staff and our ability to present a compelling case, together with our understanding of how to move a case through the system, can often make the difference between a favorable and an unfavorable result.
We serve as national, or regional, defense counsel for clients in chemical exposure litigation, indoor air quality and mold cases, pharmaceutical and vaccine cases, food additive litigation, welding rod cases, benzene exposure suits, silica cases, and asbestos litigation. Wherever a client may be sued, we can coordinate all discovery, amass the requisite scientific knowledge, prepare and defend corporate witnesses for depositions and trial, and provide a single point of contact for case handling, administration and billing.
Hinshaw has resources dedicated to some of the most litigious jurisdictions in the United States. The firm has offices in toxic tort hotspots such as Chicago, Madison County, Illinois, Florida, and California. We can therefore provide full-service legal counsel in these areas, and coast to coast, without resorting to third-party attorneys for support in highly specific and sometimes arcane areas of the law.
For more than 30 years, Hinshaw has actively defended clients in asbestos litigation, and advised those clients regarding compliance and asbestos management. We have tried many asbestos cases to verdict and represent a broad spectrum of clients in both personal injury and property damage asbestos claims in jurisdictions across the United States.
At Hinshaw, we recognize that each client affected by a toxic tort case faces unique challenges based upon its business and place within its industry. We also understand the special requirements and expectations of loss prevention managers, corporate risk specialists, corporate counsel and claims managers. Consequently, we promote the business we represent, its goals and its industry. Likewise, we routinely implement budgeting, communications and cost-containment criteria to satisfy the most demanding client.
- Aji N. Abiedu
- Christopher C. Alexander
- Mark D. Bauman
- Nickolas C. Berry
- James M. Brodzik
- Eugene Brown Jr.
- Matthew J. Canna
- Geoffrey M. Coan
- Anne C. Couyoumjian
- David R. Creagh
- Michael J. Cunningham
- April M. Dahl
- Valerie N. Doble
- Lyndon M. Flosi
- Paul J. Gamm
- Dennis J. Graber
- Mary J. Hess
- James M. Hofert
- Sara B. Jesser
- Jennifer Kalas
- Chad D. Kasdin
- Kathleen E. Kelly
- Elaine E. Koch
- Tomislav Z. Kuzmanovic
- Brett B. Larsen
- Craig T. Liljestrand
- Thomas D. Lupo
- Grace E. Mangieri
- Paul M. Markese
- Daniel W. McGrath
- Jason C. Novak
- Conrad C. Nowak
- Kyle C. Oehmke
- Sue Yun Pak
- Clinton S. Payne
- Russell S. Ponessa
- Nicole E. Rice
- David J. Richards
- Elyse M. Ryan
- Dawn A. Sallerson
- Mellissa A. Schafer
- Thomas R. Schrimpf
- Trevor A. Sondag
- Rafferty E. Taylor
- Frederick J. Ufkes
- Peter A. Walsh
- Megan L. Zust
- March 7, 2016Toxic Tort Alert
- July 1, 2015
- Four Things Manufacturers, Distributors and Retailers Need to Know About Proposed Revisions to California Proposition 65January 27, 2015Hinshaw Environmental Bulletin
- July 14, 2014Toxic Tort Alert
- November 21, 2013Toxic Tort Alert
- October 21, 2013Toxic Tort Alert
- Wisconsin Attempts to Provide Transparency and Prevent Fraud From Those Seeking Compensation From Personal Injury Bankruptcy TrustsMarch 11, 2013Toxic Tort Alert
- February 11, 2013Corporate / Financial Institutions Alert
- January 2, 2013Toxic Tort Alert
- December 12, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- November 19, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- September 12, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- July 17, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- June 29, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- Florida Trial Court Erred in Applying Second Restatement of Torts Instead of Third Restatement of Torts in Asbestos CaseJune 25, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- May 31, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- May 8, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- California Supreme Court Finds That Equipment Manufacturers Are Not Liable in Negligence or Strict Liability for Component Parts Manufactured by Third PartyJanuary 17, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- January 5, 2012Toxic Tort Alert
- Missouri Court Holds That State’s Workers’ Compensation Law Not Exclusive Remedy for Occupational DiseasesOctober 12, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- August 16, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- August 2, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- Retroactive Application of Florida’s Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act Held UnconstitutionalJuly 11, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- June 30, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- Wisconsin Rejects Medical Monitoring Requests, Holds Toxic Tort Claims Cannot Arise out of Increased Risk of CancerJune 22, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- Starting The Statute Of Limitations Clock In California Becomes More Difficult In Certain Toxic Tort CasesJune 17, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- April 19, 2011Toxic Tort Alert
- February 15, 2011
- California Court of Appeals Accepts Trial Court's Refusal to Give "Sophisticated Purchaser Defense" Instruction to Jury on Failure to WarnNovember 19, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- November 19, 2010
- Pennsylvania Redefines Summary Judgment Standard in Asbestos Litigation by Allowing Cases to Proceed Even When Other Medical Causes Are PresentSeptember 23, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- September 8, 2010Hinshaw Alert
- August 16, 2010
- Ohio Supreme Court Bars All Tort Liability Against Ohio Premises Owners Where the Asbestos Exposure Did Not Occur at the Owner’s PropertyJune 29, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- June 21, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- May 18, 2010
- State Legislatures Continue Their Attack on Banning the Use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in Baby Bottles and ContainersFebruary 22, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- February 8, 2010Toxic Tort Alert
- February 1, 2010
- Representation of a Fortune 500 company for more than 20 years in all of its toxic tort and environmental matters in the State of Illinois, including asbestos claims, bodily injury claims and property damage cases.
- Representation of an alleged successor-in-interest to a manufacturer of asbestos cement, asbestos thermal insulating pipe covering, asbestos blocks and asbestos shingles.
- Representation of manufacturers of construction and building products containing asbestos, such as asbestos cements, asbestos roofing and flooring compounds, acoustical tile and plaster, wall board, fireproofing, and thermal insulating pipe covering and block in both bodily injury and property damage cases.
- Representation of industrial boiler manufacturers, and the distributors and manufacturers of refractory materials.
- Representation of manufacturers of industrial products alleged to contain asbestos, such as pumps, valves and fans.
- Acting as national coordinating counsel for an asbestos mine and mill; overseeing this client's litigated matters and claims throughout the United States.
- Representation of a national retail sales company regarding the sales of products alleged to contain asbestos.
- Representation of a manufacturer of mining and construction vehicles.