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

EPA-science-panel

EPA Science Panel Will Impact Asbestos Regulations

On October 1, 2020, the EPA announced the nominees for the approximately 15 additional spots on the TSCA Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (“SACC”). SACC is a group of experts chosen by the EPA to “provide independent scientific advice and recommendations to...

EPA’s Asbestos Problem: Pending Litigation and Draft Risk Evaluation

Multiple States’ Attorneys General and asbestos advocacy groups are suing EPA in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California[1]. The plaintiffs are seeking judicial intervention concerning EPA “arbitrary and capricious” decision to deny states’...

Rhode Island Superior Court Establishes a Formal Protocol for Remote Depositions

Covid-19 has impacted all phases of American life, and the nation’s legal system has certainly not been immune.  However, after an initial period of uncertainty, lawyers and court systems across the country have adapted to the situation in order to keep the wheels of...

EPA’s New Asbestos Determination May Upend Decades of Science and Impact Litigation

The word “asbestos” is a term colloquially known as a hazard.  Below the surface, though, while the average person knows from television ads that they may be entitled to compensation if they are exposed to asbestos, they almost surely do not know that asbestos is a...

States and NGOs Fight Back Against Asbestos Petition Denied By EPA

Last week, we reported on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) apparent about-face on its position as to whether it has sufficient information from companies regarding asbestos use in order to determine whether further limitations should be places on the...
EPA-Asbestos

EPA’s About-Face On Asbestos Regulatory Position

On June 30, 2020, the federal government released its Spring Unified Regulatory Agenda (SURA), which provides uniform reporting of data on regulatory and deregulatory activities under development throughout the Federal Government, covering approximately 60...

No Smoking? No Problem. New DNA Defenses in Non-Smoking Lung Cancer Cases

In asbestos-related litigation involving cases of lung cancer, the question of whether asbestos was a cause in the development of the plaintiff’s lung cancer is nearly always hotly contested.  Cancers are caused by mutations that may be inherited, induced by...

EPA Seeking Public Comment On Draft Risk Evaluation For Asbestos

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking public comment on its Draft Risk Evaluation on Asbestos. Finalizing this assessment is the next step in its evaluation of the risks associated with asbestos, a review it is authorized to do by the Toxic Substances Control...

EPA Releases New Asbestos Rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated a new rule in April of 2019, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), requiring EPA review before any discontinued uses of asbestos can be reintroduced into the marketplace.  This new rule restricts...

Luis Barba Wins Oral Argument For MSJ in California

Luis Barba of CMBG3’s Orange County office successfully argued a motion for summary judgment on behalf of one of our clients in the asbestos litigation, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to establish through admissible evidence that CMBG3’s client had caused...

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

W. Joseph Gunter

Partner
Northern California
W. Joseph Gunter

Partner

Northern California

Christine D. Calareso

Partner & Director of California Offices
Southern California
Christine D. Calareso

Partner & Director of California Offices

(949) 467-9605
Southern California

Luis A. Barba

Supervising Partner - Irvine
Southern California
Luis A. Barba

Supervising Partner - Irvine

Southern California

Massachusetts Team

John P. Gardella

Shareholder
Boston, Massachusetts
John P. Gardella

Shareholder

(617) 279-8225
Boston, Massachusetts

Seta Accaoui

Associate Attorney
Boston, Massachusetts
Seta Accaoui

Associate Attorney

Boston, Massachusetts

Connecticut  Team

Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder
Boston, Massachusetts
Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder

Boston, Massachusetts

Michaela Lancer

Associate Attorney
Boston, Massachusetts
Michaela Lancer

Associate Attorney

Boston, Massachusetts

Nevada  Team

Luis A. Barba

Supervising Partner - Irvine
Southern California
Luis A. Barba

Supervising Partner - Irvine

Southern California

Rhode Island  Team

Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder
Boston, Massachusetts
Kendra Bergeron

Shareholder

Boston, Massachusetts

David A. Goldman

Shareholder
Boston, Massachusetts
David A. Goldman

Shareholder

Boston, Massachusetts

Speak to Your Asbestos Law Advocate

X