This website uses cookies to improve your experience on the site. By continuing to use this site, you agree to the use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Policy.

Toxic Tort Litigation

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP is known for its expertise in and successful defense of environmental toxic tort actions involving personal injury, medical monitoring and/or property damage claims in Colorado state and federal courts as well as state and federal courts in other western jurisdictions. These cases typically involve claims alleging common law torts, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal and state environmental statutes. Some also consist of claims under citizen suit provisions in environmental statutes. These cases include class actions, cases in which class certification was denied, cases in which bellwether plaintiff claims were tried, and individual plaintiff cases.

Recently, as public debate focuses on hydraulic fracturing or β€œfracking” of oil and gas wells, we have begun to defend oil and gas operators and oil and gas service companies in toxic tort cases based on those activities. The claims and many of the scientific issues in the hydraulic fracturing cases are the same as those that we have litigated and tried for many years in defense of manufacturers in numerous SIC codes, mining companies, railroads, pipeline companies, and oil and gas companies, among others.

Our lawyers have a wealth of knowledge and experience in litigating claims pertaining to claimed human exposures to chemicals via ingestion of water from public or private water supplies, dermal contact with water, dust or soils, and inhalation of dust and vapors including indoor air contamination from vapor intrusion. Substances at issue in one or more of our cases include chlorinated solvents (PCE, TCE, TCA, and DCE), asbestos, nitrates, lead, arsenic and other metals, uranium and other radioactive elements, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons. Many of these cases concern property damage claims based on contamination of ground water, soil, indoor air, or structures.

Recently, we successfully defended more than 20 toxic tort chlorinated solvent personal injury cases filed in federal and state courts in Colorado against a Fortune 100 company.

We have tried these cases to juries and judges. In two of the jury trials, the juries returned verdicts of no loss of property value. One of these jury trials was a class action and the other was a trial of bellwether claims for a group of more than 100 plaintiffs.

In trying and preparing these cases for trial, both trial and environmental lawyers typically work as teams. Several of the lawyers working in this area draw upon their prior training in the sciences and economics as well as the experience they have gained by working closely with hydrogeologists, environmental engineers, chemists, economists, appraisers, experts in standard of care for various industries, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and physicians with a wide range of specialties. This foundation assists these lawyers in simplifying complex scientific, economic and statistical concepts for a lay fact-finder.

Case Study: Toxic Tort Personal Injury Claim

Recently, DGS represented a large manufacturing company in two toxic tort personal injury cases, one in federal court and one in state court. The plaintiffs in each case based their claims on a historic release of chlorinated solvents to groundwater. One plaintiff asserted he had liver cancer due to exposure to chlorinated solvents in drinking water provided by a municipal system. The second asserted he had bladder cancer and neurological impairment due to exposure via an indoor air pathway, i.e. chlorinated solvent vapors migrating from groundwater into his house.

In each case, causation was, as a practical matter, the dispositive issue. If the plaintiff could not carry his burden of proof on causation, his claim would fail. If, however, the plaintiff carried his burden, the defendant company would need to evaluate seriously its litigation risk. DGS was therefore able to convince the judge in each case to limit initial pretrial proceedings to causation, in particular (i) can exposure to the solvent at the levels claimed cause the disease at issue? and (ii) if so, was this plaintiff’s disease caused by his exposure? Each judge agreed that causation was the dispositive question. A relatively short schedule for disclosures, discovery, and briefing on causation questions was set in each case.

With the help of experts in hydrogeology, toxicology, and epidemiology in each case, and an expert on indoor air in the second case, DGS submitted motions in each case which sought to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts on Daubert grounds and sought entry of summary judgment for the defendant company. In each case, shortly before their response briefs were due, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice and without any settlement payment from the defendant company.

Related Attorneys

Andrea M. Bronson

Partner, Environmental, Water Law, Natural Resources, Environmental Law & Litigation, Wetlands & Water Quality, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs

Kyler K. Burgi

Partner, Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights, Mergers & Acquisitions, Commercial Litigation, Crisis Management

Mark Champoux

Partner, Commercial Litigation, Crisis Management, White Collar Defense & Investigations, Natural Resources, Securities Enforcement & Litigation, Products Liability, Toxic Tort Litigation, Construction & Real Estate Litigation, Privacy & Data Security

Adam S. Cohen

Partner, Environmental Law & Litigation, Natural Resources, Federal Oil & Gas Leasing, Toxic Tort Litigation, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Environmental

Mave A. Gasaway

Partner, Environmental Law & Litigation, Clean Energy & Sustainability, Natural Resources, Toxic Tort Litigation, Federal Oil & Gas Leasing, Public Lands, Tribal Lands & Resources, Water Law, Endangered Species, NEPA, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Environmental

James R. Henderson

Partner, Appellate, Arbitration, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Class & Consolidated Actions, Commercial Litigation, Environmental Law & Litigation, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Toxic Tort Litigation, Trial

R. Kirk Mueller

Partner, Commercial Litigation, Appellate, Natural Resources, Environmental Law & Litigation, Coal Mining Related Litigation, Toxic Tort Litigation, NEPA, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs

Jonathan W. Rauchway

Partner, Environmental Law & Litigation, Oil & Gas Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Toxic Tort Litigation, Natural Resources, Appellate

Laura J. Riese

Partner, Brownfields Redevelopment, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Environmental Law & Litigation, Environmental Protection Agency & State Fuels Programs, Safety & Health

Ben Strawn

Partner, Trial, Commercial Litigation, Real Estate, Natural Resources

Elizabeth (Betsy) H. Temkin

Partner, Environmental Law & Litigation, Brownfields Redevelopment, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Environmental

Gail L. Wurtzler

Partner, Class & Consolidated Actions, CERCLA & State Equivalent Programs, Environmental Law & Litigation, Trial, Mining, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Toxic Tort Litigation

Thomas P. Johnson

Senior of Counsel, Class & Consolidated Actions, White Collar Defense & Investigations, Commercial Litigation, Securities Enforcement & Litigation, Toxic Tort Litigation, Intellectual Property & Technology Transactions

News & Events

Keeping the Gate Redux: More Valuation Methodologies Come Under Fire in Property Value Diminution Cases

In 2009, one of the authors of this paper published a detailed review of cases in which the opinions of...

What’s in the Package: Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplement Law and Litigation – Part 1

This two-part article discusses the regulatory framework applicable to the food, beverage, and dietary supplement industries. It also addresses Colorado...