California Asbestos Litigation

Walsworth regularly litigates high-exposure, emotionally charged cases involving catastrophic injuries and/or wrongful death. We use sophisticated approaches to complex cases that, at trial, “lower the temperature in the room,” and reduce the cases to simple stories that are easily understood by juries. Often, these cases involve multiple defendants and causation theories. Our strategies challenge the causation theories and/or shift liability to other parties, many times resulting in summary judgment or defense verdicts. Our in-depth knowledge and development of tested strategies in cases related to asbestos exposure truly set us apart. Over the course of many years, we have represented clients in excess of 30,000 asbestos cases.

Actively Defending our Clients

Our team works for many national and international corporations in the defense of asbestos litigation claims. Our numerous long-term clients appreciate the personal- and team-based litigation management system that we employ which helps to distinguish Walsworth. Our clients include distributors, manufacturers, contractors, and premises owners in cases venued throughout the State of California and other jurisdictions. We also serve as regional and national counsel for a number of high-profile asbestos defendants. Representation of these varied clients requires our team to develop, implement, and manage national and local defense strategies that most effectively serve each client.

The diversity of our clientele provides our team with a unique and broad perspective of the many key issues presented by asbestos litigation, including state-of-the-art knowledge, asbestos-related medicine, industrial hygiene, and specialized defenses available to each type of defendant we represent.

Early Assessment and Resolution

We work with our clients to investigate and evaluate cases, and cost-effectively manage large dockets from inception through discovery, motions, and final resolution. We have dedicated lawyers who specialize in settlement negotiations and have longstanding working relationships with plaintiffs’ counsel to allow meet and confer efforts throughout the life of the case.

Trial-Ready

When trial is required by the facts and circumstances of the case, desired by our clients, or simply unavoidable, we have teams of highly skilled trial attorneys who have tried—and won—multi-week and multi-month cases involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants, highly emotional claims, and complex issues of causation. Our experience provides our clients with the confidence of knowing they have a partner that can and will successfully take a case to verdict. Our asbestos trial team has commenced trial in over 500 cases, at least 50 within the last three years.

Representative Successes

LaMonica v. Consumer Products Company

Secured a defense verdict for a worldwide consumer products company in a personal injury mesothelioma case alleging exposure from a personal care product allegedly tainted with asbestos and asbestos-containing joint compound products used on the job. After more than three months of trial, the jury returned a resounding 12-0 decision for our client.
DePree v. Wholesale Distributor

Secured a non-suit during trial for a wholesale distributor of talc that was used in the manufacture of other products in a case involving a maintenance man who developed mesothelioma.
Harkin v. Refinery Labor Company

Successfully secured a defense verdict for a refinery labor company in a personal injury mesothelioma case alleging exposure to asbestos during work at a San Francisco Bay area refinery. Following four weeks of trial, the jury found that no asbestos exposure was attributable to the defendant company.
Shackles v. Product Manufacturer

Obtained a non-suit during trial for one client and settled the case favorably as to a related client immediately after the non-suit was granted in a case involving mesothelioma purportedly caused by work with asbestos-cement pipe.
Rowberg v. Plumbing Supply Company

Secured a defense verdict for a plumbing supply company and its alleged predecessor entity in a wrongful death case following 17 days of trial. The plaintiff alleged the company supplied asbestos cement pipe to the plaintiff’s worksites, thereby exposing his wife to asbestos dust via his clothing. The wife subsequently contracted mesothelioma and passed away. Plaintiffs’ attorneys had asked the jury for $18 million.
Obtained summary judgment in a personal injury asbestos-related matter filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The grant of summary judgment, a rare win in asbestos cases where there is affirmative identification of the client, came after a successful argument against plaintiff’s wholly speculative assertion that the client’s product contained asbestos during the relevant time period. The court sustained Walsworth’s objections to plaintiff’s key percipient witness and corporate representative testimony and granted summary judgment.
Resolved an asbestos-related matter pending in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of a general contractor for an amount significantly less than plaintiff’s demand after successfully obtaining a court order excluding plaintiff’s primary medical expert from testifying at trial. Plaintiff made the novel argument that the defendants’ asbestos-containing products caused him to develop multiple myeloma, a type of cancer not previously associated with asbestos exposure. However, through extensive motion practice, we obtained an order excluding plaintiff’s expert from testifying that asbestos could cause multiple myeloma and precluding all damages related to multiple myeloma at trial. We were then able to successfully resolve the matter as a pleural plaques case for much less than plaintiffs were expecting when the case was an alleged cancer case.
Extricated our client, a gasket fabricator, from an asbestos-related mesothelioma matter pending in Alameda Superior Court by successfully bringing a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction where we established that the client lacked the necessary minimum contacts with the state of California required for jurisdiction, even though it had manufactured gaskets sold in California.
Obtained a dismissal for an automotive brake manufacturer in a wrongful death mesothelioma matter pending in Alameda Superior Court after filing a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that the client lacked the necessary minimum contacts with the state of California required for jurisdiction because although the client manufactured brakes that were allegedly installed in Japanese automobiles sold in the United States, it had no presence in California and had not conducted business or sold its products in the State.