Home_Services_Asbestos

Skilled litigation. Sophisticated motion practice. Your legal asset for all things asbestos.

When faced with asbestos-related injury allegations, clients including automobile manufacturers, power sports equipment manufacturers, agricultural and construction equipment manufacturers, railroads and others know they can rely on us. Our deep experience and knowledge of their industries allows us to craft bold litigation strategies that go beyond the assumed or obvious, actually and practically supporting our clients’ business objectives.

While our litigators are carving a path with effective, inventive defense strategies in thousands of cases across the country, our home base happens to sit in the heart of asbestos litigation. Almost 60% of all mesothelioma and lung cancer cases are filed in Madison County, St. Clair County and Cook County, Illinois, and in neighboring St. Louis. But unlike some others who opened up storefronts simply to say they had an office once asbestos litigation really took off, our firm and our lawyers have been in this community — and in these courtrooms — for generations. We’ve got skin in the game, and we always play to win for our clients.

a powerful (indeed, precedential) track record

While we love the jurisdictions we call home and move gracefully within them, they are perceived by some to be plaintiff friendly. Therefore, when appropriate and beneficial for our clients, we have become known for respectfully removing cases through novel and creative motion practices. In fact, we represented the winning defendants in most of the seminal opinions on forum non conveniens — including the most recent opinion from a Madison County, Illinois, asbestos case, which extended the theory to the asbestos realm for the very first time. We also employ creative strategies to try and obtain early and complete resolutions of claims through dismissals. For this reason, companies will often turn to us to help them break out of a taxing pattern of expensive settlements related to alleged asbestos injuries.

We smooth the way for “friction” and numerous other defendants facing asbestos injury claims.

Our key differentiators are the depth of our bench and experience, and our unwavering commitment to our clients.

We not only fight for our client companies but for the hardworking and innovative men and women who comprise them.

We offer several alternative pricing models, providing significant value for our clients.

Case Studies

‘Conveniently’ Making Caselaw

Client issue: A railroad client was sued in Madison County, Illinois, for asbestos exposure that took place in Texas. While our office had historically utilized the doctrine of forum non conveniens in other cases, due to historical precedent most in the asbestos bench had previously assumed that the theory could not be applied to asbestos matters. Citing some 50 defendants who were located in Madison County, as well as the county’s representing a “halfway point” geographically, the trial judge denied our motion to transfer the case.

TC Approach: We didn’t think the county’s being midway on a map was a good enough reason to force our client to litigate in Madison County. We also don’t like to assume, and we do like to push the envelope for our clients. And so we appealed.

Outcome: Applying the theory for the first time in the asbestos context, the appellate court agreed and granted our forum non conveniens motion to remove and transfer the case. While this was ‘only’ in an Illinois state court, it has national impact, given that approximately 60% of all asbestos cases in the country are filed here. This case is now the one that every cites, when making their own similar motions to move.

Passing the Test for Our Clients

Client issue: Instead of suing one of the big automotive manufacturers for asbestos-related c claims, a plaintiff sued our client, a Japanese company that makes brake components for cars. They did so despite the fact that our client only did business in Japan, selling to other Japanese companies. The plaintiff did not try to hide the fact that they were bringing this suit as a test case, to try and open up access to an entirely new level of companies (and revenue).

TC Approach: We didn’t think it was fair or appropriate to drag our client, or similar international companies only doing business in their countries, into Madison and St. Clair counties. We also understood the profound impact a plaintiff win would have here, potentially opening the door to naming and suing our client (and others like them) in every similar case moving forward. We fought a fierce personal jurisdiction battle, challenging service, securing affidavits, and undertaking a huge discovery fight and lengthy oral arguments.

Outcome: We successfully had the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Unless the plaintiff appeals and changes the outcome, this win shuts the door not only on this plaintiff’s firm but others like it, but on cases against this defendant and type of defendant for years to come.