• Home
• Firm Profile
• Attorneys
• Practices
• News
• Careers
• Location
• Contact

Product Liability and Toxic Tort Litigation

Leader & Berkon offers clients exceptional expertise in defending product liability and toxic tort actions.  In this specialized area of the law, we represent large chemical companies and manufacturers like DuPont, Whirlpool, Monsanto and Dresser/Haliburton.  Our attorneys are adept at devising and designing appropriate defense strategies for cases involving exposure to a variety of materials including asbestos, benzene and other chemicals, paints, pharmaceuticals, solvents and lead-paint.  We cover all aspects of toxic tort litigation, from investigation to proceeding with trial, if necessary.  In defending such cases, we represent Fortune 500 chemical and manufacturing companies, premises owners and major insurers, as both lead local counsel in the tri-state area, and as national coordinating counsel.  Moreover, our in-depth involvement with cases concerning a myriad of the most serious personal injuries has given us a strong capacity for dealing with a range of experts, including those in the fields of accident reconstruction, causation, medicine, rehabilitation and economics.

            Here are some examples of the breadth of our experience:

·                     We acted as national coordinating counsel for DuPont when it was sued by plaintiffs in more than 250 cases that involved birth defects and cancers allegedly caused by exposure to chemicals at semiconductor manufacturing plants in New York, Minnesota and California.  Through early and thorough investigation of the facts and science, close communication with our client and experts, and through successful cooperation with our co-defendants, we were able to dismiss a number of cases by demonstrating lack of causation or exposure and were able to extricate our client from the remaining cases with a satisfactory global settlement.

·                     When a firm known for its high volume of asbestos cases, began filing claims alleging benzene exposure aboard ships, we were asked to defend two of the lead defendants that were named in the suits.  After taking limited discovery concerning plaintiffs’ allegations, and before any discovery of defendant was permitted, we took the lead in making summary judgment motions, achieving dismissals in all cases.  We were successful at the appellate level as well, even defeating plaintiffs’ motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in the State of New York.

·                     In a case involving the leakage of trichlorethylene and perchlorethylene from underground storage tanks near army barracks at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, plaintiffs alleged that they ingested the chemicals that had migrated into the drinking water, which caused their child to suffer from various birth defects.  Our early investigation and analysis of the weaknesses in plaintiffs’ case allowed us to take an aggressive stance at the outset, and we ultimately persuaded plaintiffs to release our client for a nominal settlement amount before discovery commenced. 

·                     Through an early proactive stance, we successfully litigated a case involving delivery of ferric chloride into a mislabeled tank containing sodium hypochlorite at the Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant.  We took an aggressive stance against the City of New York during discovery which ultimately paid off when one of its employees admitted that the tanks were mislabeled, thus providing an excellent exit strategy for our client.

·                     We successfully resolved an action involving a plaintiff, an airport ground handler, who alleged that he was exposed to phenol while unloading the cargo hold of an airplane and that he suffered injury to his esophagus and respiratory system.  We conducted an investigation concerning our client’s compliance with international and United States regulations concerning the shipping, labeling and storage of the chemical, which helped to bring about a very early resolution of the case.

·                     Some of our best results have been achieved through our extensive work with medical and scientific experts.  We came head-to-head with the controversial “multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome” (MCS) theory in a case involving carpeting.  Through providing solid and credible expert analysis that the purported molecular toxin involved could not have been formed by the chemicals at the site where plaintiff alleged she was exposed, we persuaded plaintiffs’ attorney to dismiss our client from the case.

·                     In similar fashion, we handled multiple claims arising from the installation of new carpeting by an upstate New York school district that had rebuilt several of its schools.  We worked closely with environmental consultants and obtained a dismissal for our clients after demonstrating, scientifically, that the purported toxins could not have off-gassed in the manner that plaintiffs had alleged.

·                     For over two decades, in both construction and product actions, we have successfully represented Dresser Industries in personal injury and property damage cases.  One was a highly-publicized action brought by a deceased firefighter’s estate, which claimed the failure of a Dresser hydrant contributed to his death.  In another, we persuaded plaintiff’s counsel to immediately hold a joint visit at the site where a deck leveler had seriously injured plaintiff.  We demonstrated that plaintiff’s theory of liability was totally wrong, and the case was dismissed with prejudice two days later.  Finally, we obtained an early dismissal of a serious matter by bringing a successful Daubert challenge which eliminated plaintiff’s expert.

·                     In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, we obtained summary judgment in a case involving a railcar accident.  In addition to demonstrating plaintiffs’ theory of how the accident occurred to be wholly incredible, we established as undisputed fact that our client’s safety practices complied with all applicable federal regulations such that it could not have had notice of any purported mechanical defect in the railcar’s braking system.

·                     In the large number of aviation cases we have handled, we have had vast experience with aviation product-component liability such as the Texasgulf Litigation which involved the electrical system of a Lockheed Jetstar and its compatibility with newly installed solid state generator control units.  That case was tried for six months before a federal court jury in the Southern District of New York.

·                     On an ongoing basis, we represent Whirlpool in product liability actions in the New York area and have done so for 15 years.