Toxic Torts

Environmental claims are among the most costly for insurers to litigate. They often involve multiple defendants, diverse theories of recovery and emerging science.

Litchfield Cavo LLP has litigated hundreds of direct defense and coverage matters involving complex toxic torts across the United States. Through their decades of experience, our attorneys have amassed significant knowledge, devised creative defense theories and produced notable results for our clients.

In each case, our attorneys thoroughly prepare for trial by reviewing every possible defense. We communicate and collaborate with clients to devise a strategy that precisely targets their goals.

Throughout the years, we have defended a wide variety of clients, including:

  • Manufacturers
  • Distributors
  • Designers
  • Contractors
  • Subcontractors
  • Owners
  • Installers
  • Remediators
  • Engineers
  • Construction managers
  • Property managers
  • Architects

Environmental personal injury, illness and property damage lawsuits defended by the firm include those related to the following:

  • Aluminum metal exposure
  • Asbestos
  • Benzene exposure
  • Berylliosis
  • Blood transfusions and HIV
  • Breast implants
  • Carbon monoxide
  • Chemical exposure
  • Chromium exposure
  • Clean Air Act
  • Clean Water Act
  • Electromagnetic radiation exposure
  • Food additives exposure
  • Insecticide poisoning
  • Latex gloves
  • Lead exposure
  • Magnesium metal exposure
  • Mixed dust
  • Mold
  • Multiple chemical sensitivity
  • Noise-induced hearing loss
  • Paint sealant
  • Paint sensitivity
  • Pneumoconiosis
  • Propane litigation
  • Sarcoidosis
  • Silicosis
  • Superfund (CERCLA) contamination
  • Tobacco
  • Welding exposure
  • Wood sealants

Our toxic tort defense record

Litchfield Cavo has the resources and experience to produce results. Our accomplishments include the following:

  • Successfully defended a physician against a plaintiff claiming fear of contracting hepatitis and HIV after sustaining a puncture wound from a discarded hypodermic needle.
  • Successfully defended a ceramics manufacturer from a claim that exposure to manganese used in glazes causes Parkinson’s disease.
  • Defended a large manufacturer in a wood sealant exposure case in which the plaintiff sought a multimillion-dollar recovery. Our attorneys obtained a directed verdict on some of the counts lodged against the manufacturer and a jury verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the remaining counts.
  • Prevailed in an appeal on behalf of a remediation firm sued in a toxic mold lawsuit. Specifically, a good-faith settlement between two co-defendants and plaintiff was overturned in a published appellate court decision.
  • Prevailed in an appeal of a trial court's dismissal of a complaint brought by a commercial tenant against Litchfield Cavo's client, a real estate investment firm and hospitality management company, for personal injuries and damages arising from the plaintiff's purported exposure to mold. The trial court held, and the appeals court affirmed, that the evidence demonstrated that the underlying basis for the plaintiff's expert opinions did not meet the reliability requirements established by Daubert and Lanigan.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a manufacturer of industrial valves, in a case alleging a retired plumbing contractor was exposed to asbestos gaskets and packing contained in valves in the early 1970s.