In this products liability case, the surviving plaintiffs alleged that the decedent developed and died of acute myelogenous leukemia due to his occupational exposure to benzene, which was allegedly released from the manufacturing processes at our client’s chemical plant.  At the early stages of litigation, we engaged in a series of informal negotiations with the plaintiffs’ counsel.  We urged the plaintiffs’ counsel to dismiss our client from the action based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims.  Before our demurrer and motion to strike was heard, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss our client with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs.

Plaintiffs brought an action alleging that their decedent developed heart, kidney and liver disease due to exposure to numerous chemical products in the course of the decedent’s employment as a laborer.  We filed a Demurrer as to all causes of action on the grounds that plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint failed to assert a sufficient factual connection or causal nexus between our client’s products and the decedent’s injuries.  The Court agreed and sustained the Demurrer without leave to amend, thereby disposing the entire action as to our client.

In this products liability case, the plaintiffs, a widow and three children, filed a wrongful death and survival action against numerous defendants, including our clients, alleging that decedent’s exposure to benzene and other alleged toxins from defendants’ chemical products caused him to develop kidney disease and brain cancer. We filed a demurrer as to all of plaintiffs’ survival causes of action, arguing that those claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that equitable tolling did not save plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that equitable tolling and the relation back doctrines applied. We argued that neither doctrines applied as to our clients, and that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision as to our clients, and ordered plaintiffs to bear the costs of our clients’ appeal.

The plaintiff in this product liability action alleged that while he was employed as a painter in Illinois from 1958 to 2000, he was exposed to defendants’ chemical products which contained benzene. He further alleged that his exposure to benzene from these products caused him to develop serious bodily injuries, including Myelodysplastic Syndrome (“MDS”). The plaintiff filed an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against approximately 40 corporate defendants alleging claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.  The Court granted a motion to dismiss on the theory of forum non conveniens, thereby terminating the entire action in California.

The Bronstein case is a products liability action based upon the alleged toxic injuries sustained by decedent Ely Bronstein and plaintiff Roger Lewis, as a result of alleged exposure to toxins while employed by National Steel and Ship Building (NASSCO). Mr. Bronstein was employed by NASSCO as a pipe fitter/welder for 36 years. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Bronstein’s Acute Mylegenous Leukemia, which lead to his death in November 2003, was related to exposure to toxins. Mr. Lewis was employed by NASSCO as a welder for 29 years. In 1986, Mr. Lewis was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs commenced an action against over 50 defendants alleging causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability-warning defect, strict liability- design defect, and breach of implied warranties.

After over four years of litigation, Hurrell Cantrall LLP was successful in obtaining outright dismissals on behalf of two of its clients, and a nominal settlement of $1,000 on behalf of another client. Hurrell Cantrall LLP advanced the argument that plaintiffs could not maintain their burden of proving that decedent Ely Bronstein and plaintiff Roger Lewis were exposed to the alleged products, or that their exposure was the cause of their injuries.

In this action, plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of exposure to numerous defendants’ paint products, decedent developed and died of acute myelogenous leukemia. Plaintiffs produced voluminous documents allegedly establishing that decedent purchased our client’s paint products. We filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiffs had insufficient evidence of decedent’s exposure to our client’s product and that plaintiffs could not establish that exposure to our client’s product was a substantial factor in causing his leukemia. A couple of days before plaintiffs’ opposition was due, we reached a favorable settlement on behalf of our client.

Plaintiff alleged that, as a seaman, he was exposure to benzene from 16 different defendants’ products and sustained serious bodily injuries, including acute myelogenous leukemia. In addition to common law claims, plaintiff alleged injures under the Jones Act. We were successful in obtaining a dismissal based on a demurrer.