Press Releases
James Montano Joins Wilson Elser’s Florham Park Office
March 4, 2020
The health risks associated with exposure to asbestos and, more recently, talc have garnered wide public attention and triggered massive amounts of lawsuits and regulations. Wilson Elser has been on the front lines of related toxic tort and mass tort litigation.
We defend companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of a broad range of talc- and asbestos-containing products alleged to have caused cancer, such as powders, cosmetics, gaskets, packing and sealing products, boilers, pumps, compressors, evaporators, joint compounds, household appliances, tiles and friction products.
When confronted with a claim, as dictated by the scope and nature of the dispute, we assemble integrated teams of practice attorneys and supporting professionals who work nationwide and command the respect of clients, courts and opposing counsel.
While we recognize the wisdom of resolving most talc and asbestos cases prior to the expense and vagaries associated with a jury trial, when necessary, our attorneys use their significant trial experience in state and federal courts to defend personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits allegedly related to exposure to these and other toxins. We are experienced in litigating state-of-the-art issues requiring a grasp of relevant medical and scientific literature and studies. As needed, we are assisted by some of the most respected defense experts in various fields, including epidemiology, pathology, industrial hygiene and pulmonary medicine.
Our numerous defense verdicts and appellate wins in asbestos and talc exposure lawsuits, including cases involving plaintiffs who allegedly suffer from mesothelioma, attest to the effectiveness and reliability of Wilson Elser’s litigators.
Dirk Muse (Partner-Seattle) and Carinne Bannan (Of Counsel-Seattle) obtained a complete dismissal with prejudice in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington, for Wilson Elser's client, a manufacturer of roofing and decking materials. In this asbestos case – recently transferred from one side of the state to the other – Dirk and Carinne argued dismissal was the only appropriate remedy, given the plaintiff's total lack of product identification evidence connecting the client to the alleged exposure. The plaintiff's counsel, who had ignored all informal requests for dismissal, then sought a continuance of the summary judgment motion to conduct further discovery. Dirk and Carinne convinced the court that a continuance was unwarranted, as the plaintiff had failed to pursue discovery in the year since filing the case. Accordingly, the court dismissed the claims with prejudice for lack of evidence.
Dirk J. Muse