With so many

Asbestos Law

Firms

to choose from, why us?

The CMBG3 Difference

We Have The Pulse of the National Litigation

Represent half a dozen companies in asbestos litigation as National Coordinating Counsel

Defend our clients in so-called “judicial hell holes” like New York, Illinois, and South Carolina

Experts on all asbestos litigation trends in every state in the country

Offices in Boston, Northern California, and Southern California

Litigate asbestos cases in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Rhode Island and Washington, with licenses in a number of other states

Latest Asbestos News

Providing Juries with Alternative Explanations: How a Recent Publication on the Historical Knowledge of the Health Hazards of Insulators Can Assist in Obtaining Defense Verdicts

One challenge trial teams often face as they defend clients in asbestos or talc related lawsuits is providing the jury with enough information to understand the cause of plaintiff’s harm. It is more effective to show what actually caused the harm, not merely that...

Carla Storm To Attend Cook County Asbestos Litigation Conference

Carla Storm, an attorney with CMBG3 Law licensed to practice in Illinois and Missouri, will be attending the upcoming Cook County Asbestos Litigation Conference on May 19 in Chicago, Illinois.  Carla has nearly 20 years of experience litigating toxic torts cases, has...

The Missing Piece to Your Business’ Litigation Team: Using A National Coordinating Counsel to Manage Your Mass Tort Litigation

Businesses, large and small, can find themselves overwhelmed by litigation quickly, if and when they find themselves in the crosshairs of a developing litigation. For years, the best example of these crosshairs was those focused mainly on asbestos and those entities...

Rhode Island Court Dismisses Case Against CMBG3’s Client After Oral Argument

CMBG3 Law is pleased to announce that its attorneys successfully secured a dismissal for their client in an asbestos case pending in Rhode Island. The lawsuit alleged that the client was responsible for manufacturing products which allegedly contained asbestos and...

Proposed FDA Rule May Require Stricter Testing for Talc in Cosmetic Products

Recent federal developments may soon require cosmetic companies to adopt stringent precautions to ensure that talc-containing products are free of asbestos, further safeguarding consumers from potential asbestos exposure. On December 26, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug...

John Bitetto To Speak At NJ Asbestos Litigation Conference

Attorney John Bitetto of CMBG3 Law will speak on November 15, 2024 at the New Jersey Asbestos Litigation conference, which is hosted by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. John will co-present at 1:50pm on Rule 104 hearing developments in the...
PFAS health advisory

THE IMPACT OF NEW FRE 702 AMENDMENTS ON MASS TORT LITIGATION

By: Matthew Lite, Esq. Experts often provide the most impactful and influential testimony a jury hears at trial.  Unfortunately, even though many experts possess advanced college degrees and other impressive credentials, and testify with an air of confidence, that...

Whitney Barrows To Provide Opening Remarks At DRI Asbestos Medicine

CMBG3 Law's Whitney Barrows will be at the DRI Asbestos Medicine Conference in San Diego from November 2 through November 4, 2022, and had the honor of being asked to provide opening remarks and introduce the speakers for the Young Lawyers' Sessions on Thursday,...

Summary Judgment Obtained In Asbestos Mesothelioma Case

At the end of last week, the CMBG3 Team secured a favorable ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Plaintiffs asserted that decedent was exposed to asbestos during his time in the United States Navy while on board several vessels from...

Summary Judgment Secured In Serious Asbestos Case

Last week, in the matter In re Toy Asbestos, the trial court in the Northern District of California granted CMBG3's client's (defendant Armstrong International, Inc.) motion for summary judgment (Toy - Dkt 563 - Order Granting Armstrong's MSJ). After serving in the...

Successful appellate attorneys in California for asbestos cases

We Are Trial Tested

Started trial in over 40 asbestos cases in Massachusetts and California
Over 175 verdicts in products liability, construction, contracts, dram shop and child abuse cases

Responsible for 1 of only 6 defense verdicts in Massachusetts asbestos cases in past 15
years

We Are Trendsetters & Leaders In Asbestos Litigation

Successfully argued trend-setting motions in California and Massachusetts asbestos cases

Keynote speakers at renowned conferences and industry group seminars, including the DRI asbestos conference

Elected members of the Massachusetts asbestos Executive and Discovery Committees, effectuating change to the docket for the defense bar

Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc.

CMBG3’s California team was hired by a company involved in the Alameda County asbestos litigation to appeal a jury award in favor of a plaintiff for $1.6 million in damages. The trial involved a 63-year old laborer who alleged that he installed thousands of feet of asbestos-cement pipe on a six month job in northern California between 1976 and 1977. The asbestos-cement pipe was allegedly supplied by the company that hired Joe Gunter and Christine Calareso to appeal the jury verdict to the California Appellate Court. The only evidence that plaintiff produced to support his claim that our client supplied the asbestos-cement pipe was testimony from the plaintiff’s foreman, who claimed to remember signing invoices 40 years ago with our client’s name on the documents. None of the alleged invoices were ever produced – nevertheless, over objections, the trial court allowed the testimony to be presented.

At oral argument before the Appellate Court, Joe argued that the evidence produced against our client was inadmissible hearsay – an extremely difficult argument to make given that finding in CMBG3’s favor would require the Appellate Court to overturn not only the trial judge’s rulings on the issue, but also the conclusions of the jury during the trial. The Appellate Court agreed, finding that the trial judge should have excluded the testimony of the foreman since the documents were not available. The 16 page ruling in favor of our client gave the company a major victory, as it reversed the damages awarded by the jury at the trial. The Appellate Court case was argued before the First Appellate Division, Division Five, Docket Number A152692.

This case gained national notoriety due to the difficulty of the argument, and received media attention, notably from the San Francisco Chronicle.

How We Can Help You

While all of our attorneys litigate asbestos cases, should you need help with an issue in a specific state in which we regularly handle asbestos matters, please contact us filling out our form.

California Team

Christine D. Calareso

Partner

Connecticut  Team

Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder

Michaela Lancer

Partner

Massachusetts Team

John P. Gardella

Shareholder

Rhode Island  Team

Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder

David A. Goldman

Shareholder

Nevada  Team

Speak to Your Asbestos Law Advocate