Attorneys: View Attorneys in this PracticeThe Toxic Tort & Environmental Law Practice of Haight Brown & Bonesteel provides a full range of representation to clients on environmental compliance and litigation issues. Our goal is to achieve cost and resource effectiveness in seeking realistic client objectives. Our attorneys are experts in a wide spectrum of environmental issues. We have been effective in devising strategies to reduce the risk and cost of litigation, by focusing on compliance and prospective solutions to environmental issues facing our clients who run the gamut from Fortune 100 companies to family-owned businesses and individuals, and we strive to implement a plan of representation which takes into account each client's unique needs.
Asbestos Litigation
The firm has a long and distinguished history representing defendants in complex asbestos litigation in California. As plaintiffs have identified and asserted novel theories of recovery against different types of asbestos defendants, the firm’s asbestos litigation practice has expanded to meet the challenge. Our attorneys represent manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers sued on strict products liability theories. These clients include manufacturers of electrical components, locomotive cranes, industrial process and piping equipment and valves, chemical components used in the aerospace industry, specialized wire, tile-setting materials, respiratory protection equipment, and flooring products. We also represent manufacturers of household appliances and equipment which allegedly contained asbestos-containing insulation or wiring. The firm represents premises liability defendants sued for alleged asbestos exposure on property they have owned or controlled and manufacturers sued for asbestos-containing friction products installed on their vehicles and equipment.
In the asbestos litigation practice group, we have assembled an interdisciplinary team of experienced trial attorneys specializing in products liability, toxic tort, health sciences, and bankruptcy. We have been particularly effective in successfully litigating complex corporate successor issues to extricate our clients from the litigation. The firm has the resources to deliver superior legal services tailored to the specific needs of each of our clients. We use technology and litigation management expertise to efficiently bring cases to a successful conclusion through settlement or trial. The firm’s appellate department has extensive experience in protecting defense verdicts on appeal.
Toxic Tort Litigation
Our toxic tort practice is founded on the fundamental strengths of our experienced attorneys in the areas of:
Trace Benzene Litigation
Haight Brown & Bonesteel has extensive litigation experience involving claims arising from benzene exposure. We were counsel for the Beverly Hills Unified School District in a trace benzene case involving 1,000 plaintiffs. The case involves numerous cancers including; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, thyroid, breast, and testicular cancer, melanoma, and basal cell carcinoma. Our attorneys have also defended numerous benzene cases brought by ARCO refinery workers who claimed occupational exposure. We have monitored ARCO’s benzene related litigation in six western states. From our experience in these, and other trace benzene cases, including a recent pipeline exposure case involving 1,400 plaintiffs claiming benzene exposure, we are familiar with leading experts in the field, as well as the toxicological and epidemiological theories brought by plaintiffs in these types of cases. We have also used this knowledge to create an extensive "benzene database" that contains scientific, medical and exposure articles as well as epidemiological studies about benzene.
Chan v. Northrop Grumman
Plaintiff alleges that he developed liver damage and requires a liver transplant (or he will expire) as a result of exposure to a number of chemicals, including lead solder, which was manufactured by our client. There are over 30 defendants involved in the case.
Lerner v. Archstone
Plaintiffs allege that their son was born with serious birth defects - no stomach, missing fingers, vision and hearing loss and brain damage, as a result of the mother's exposure to Formaldehyde allegedly being off-gassed from a laminate wood floor. HBB represents the floor manufacturer.
Diamond v. Konica Minolta Medical Imaging
Decedent was a chiropractor who developed x-rays in his office in Beverly Hills. Plaintiffs allege that their husband/father developed leukemia and died from exposure to Hydroquinone, Glutaraldehyde and ionizing radiation. HBB represents Konica Minolta, the manufacturer of the x-ray processing machine.
Gentry v. Shaw
Plaintiffs allege that they developed serious physical injuries as a result of exposure to Toluene which is a chemical used in manufacturing carpeting and adhesives. HBB represents the manufacturer of the carpeting. Plaintiffs also claim damage for the loss of their home, which is in foreclosure, because they would not live in it nor pay the mortgage.
Moss v. Venoco, et al.
Over 1,000 plaintiffs alleged that they developed forms of cancer, and other ailments, as a result of exposure to Benzene, PCBs, Chromium 6 and other chemicals emanating from an oil well located on the Beverly Hills High School Campus and a heating and cooling plant located next to the campus. We represent the Beverly Hills Unified School District and prevailed after filing motions for summary judgment based on medical causation and government immunity.
Tennant v. TrimSpa and related cases
TrimSpa manufactures weight loss supplements. Plaintiffs claimed they developed serious physical injuries from several chemical compounds in Trimspa’s weight loss supplement. The cases settled for a nominal sum while our summary judgment motion was pending.
