.

Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation

Lawyers on our Environmental and Toxic Tort Practice focus on the defense of toxic tort personal injury actions, environmental property damage claims, environmental remediations and insurance coverage disputes arising out of environmental or toxic tort matters.

Since the inception of toxic tort litigation, we have been heavily involved in a wide variety of such matters. Beginning in the mid-1970s, we represented Johns Manville Corporation, the largest manufacturer of asbestos products in North America, in all asbestos litigation in eastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. Since the establishment of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust in the late 1980s, we have served as Northeast Region Consulting Counsel for the Trust.
 
Personal Injury & Property Damage Asbestos
In addition, we have represented other major corporations in both personal injury and property damage asbestos matters. We also have defended numerous clients in cases arising from exposure to:

  • TCE
  • PCBs
  • Welding fumes
  • Adhesives
  • Pesticides
  • Epoxies
  • Asphalt fumes
  • Silica
  • Lead paint
  • Toxic dusts
  • Formaldehyde
  • Gasoline
  • Commercial lubricants
  • HVAC contaminants
  • Other allegedly toxic materials

We have actively participated in class action and multi-district litigation in the toxic tort field.
 
In addition, our toxic tort litigation attorneys have handled numerous environmental matters. We have represented a great number of clients in litigation arising out of Superfund landfill clean-ups, private cost recovery actions, soil or ground water contamination, drinking water contamination, leaking underground storage tanks, indoor air pollution (sick building syndrome) and others.
 
In conjunction with our firm's Insurance Coverage and Appellate Advocacy practices, we also represent insurance carriers in insurance coverage matters which arise out of underlying environmental or toxic tort cases and in which a thorough knowledge of the environmental and toxic tort areas is crucial to proper handling of coverage issues.
 
An understandable concern of every client in significant environmental and toxic tort cases is the extent of legal fees and costs. Our firm began as an insurance defense firm, and, although we have expanded our practice areas considerably, we have never lost our sensitivity to our clients' desire to control legal expenses. This is especially true in the environmental and toxic tort areas where multi-party, complex cases make control of expenses all that more important. We always handle cases with a practical, results-oriented approach which balances strong representation of our clients with realistic cost containment.  Not only do we offer a competitive fee structure, but we also work with our clients to develop innovative, alternative approaches to normal file handling which result in considerable savings without sacrificing quality legal representation.

Results

View all

Dismissal with Prejudice Obtained in Remediation Case Involving Environmental Violations

We won a motion dismissing all claims with prejudice against our clients in a case involving a major remediation project for environmental violations. We filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint based on its failure to provide an affidavit of merit within the prescribed time, and because the agreed upon liability waiver clause precludes litigation against the individual defendants. We argued that public policy recognizes limitation of liability clauses when they are reasonable and when they incentivize the licensed professional to perform. Further, we argued that the affidavit of merit statute’s text and legislative purposes require the affidavit to be served within 60 days (extendable for good cause to 120 days) from the date when the licensed professional files its answer, regardless of whether the pleadings are subsequently amended to name other defendants or assert additional claims. Under New Jersey law, the plaintiff’s failure to provide an affidavit of merit confirmed that their claims must be dismissed with prejudice. The court agreed that: (1) the agreed upon exculpatory waiver clause was reasonable and not against public policy; and (2) the plaintiff’s failure to provide an affidavit of merit was fatal. The court dismissed all claims as to our client and their individual employees with prejudice.

Thought Leadership

View all

Case Law Alerts

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Groups Appealing Environmental Permits May Recover Legal Fees from Companies

April 1, 2023

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision arising from two separate cases has made it significantly easier for public and environmental groups to be reimbursed for legal fees when they successfully appeal environmental permits. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses a lower court ruling that had placed a major barrier to reimbursement of legal costs for environmental lawsuits brought by non-profits and residents. The case involves the Mariner East pipeline construction and an appeal of the Mariner East pipeline environmental permits, which began six years ago over issues with water quality. Sunoco owns the Mariner East, which carries natural gas liquids across Pennsylvania for export in Philadelphia. The construction of the Mariner East was regulated with permits from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection with two types of permits that addressed erosion and sedimentation and wetland and waterways. Following this recent ruling, members of the public harmed by permits allowing industrial activities, who are able to successfully appeal those permits, are more easily able to get reimbursement of their legal costs. The reimbursement can come not only from the state, who issued the permit, but from the company holding the permits and profiting from the permitted activity. Legal experts, fees, and other costs necessary for these cases can easily reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the cases can go on for years or even decades, making appeals like this out of reach for most, absent the ability to recoup costs.    Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Injury Claims Trends in the U.S. - What’s Up and What’s Down

August 25, 2021

In this article, Matthew S. Schorr addresses claims litigation trends related to climate change, talc, molestation, teflon, business interruption and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.

Thought Leadership

Fla. Workers' Comp Physician Dispensing Ruling Could Produce New Legislative Fight

In a significant decision issued on February 25, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal (DCA) ruled in Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al. v. Department of Financial Services, et al., 430 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2026), that while injured workers have an absolute right to choose their own pharmacy or pharmacist, that right does not extend to physicians who dispense medications directly to their patients.  Read Blake's article in Insurance Journal: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2026/08/05/880229.htm. 

Thought Leadership

A Unified, Single Claim for Damages Requires Apportionment in a Joint Proposal: What the Decision in 'Trace Elements' Means for Property Insurance Claims

Kimberly and Seth, shareholders in the Insurance Services Practice in our Fort Lauderdale office, break down the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 'Trace Elements v. MacKensen' and what it means for property insurance claims in the state. Read the article here.

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute