Toxic Torts

Our firm has extensive experience in representing individuals who have been injured by exposure to toxic and other dangerous substances, forms of energy, and devices, including asbestos, chemicals and cosmetics, hazardous waste, medical products and devices, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, radiation and electromagnetic energy, and tobacco. We represent clients in recovering money damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages, where appropriate, individually or as part of a class action.

• Samples v. Conoco, Inc., et al, No 2001-CA-000631, Div. "J" (Escambia County First Judicial Circuit Court, Florida) (Order of August 28, 2003) (certifying class of property owners living near NPL site for economic loss) (class counsel were "shown to be qualified, adequately financed, and possessed sufficient experience in the subject matter of the class action... as well as complex environmental litigation... have demonstrated both their commitment to vigorously pursue this matter on behalf of the class as well as their qualifications to do so.")
• Fred Sharp Sanders, et al. v. Roland Gary, et al., No. 95-CW-0070 & No. 95-CW-0940, 657 So.2d 1085, (1st Cir. La. App., June 23, 1995) (holding that trial court has jurisdiction to issue injunctions, even when the case involves mineral production otherwise regulated by the Commissioner of Conservation; rejection of administrative stay request; the trial court has jurisdiction to award restoration damages, even without prior Department of Environmental Quality approval).
• Magnolia Coal Terminal v. Phillips Oil Company, 576 So.2d 475 (La. Sup. Ct., March 11, 1991) (right of property owner-lessor to tort, contract and nuisance remedies against oil and gas lessee for pollution cleanup recognized in case of first impression; regulatory preemption counter-arguments rejected)
• Joseph C. Canizaro Interests v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., No. 88-3916 (E.D. La) (multi-million dollar settlement for developer who owned a former refinery site; Premier Bank recovered 100% of its mortgage)
• Petrovic, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) (adequacy of representation in class action and affirming discretion of trial court to refuse to use subclasses in environmental cases), cited with approval in MANUAL FOR COMPLEX L ITIGATION (3d ed.) (2002 ed.), § 30.18, p. 246
• Guste, et al. v. Shell Oil Company , No. 95-601 (E.D. La.)(January 15, 1997, allowing restoration damages in lieu of fair market value damages in a pollution case) (January 14, 1997, rejecting administrative stay request in damages case) (multi-million dollar settlement after six days of trial)