PRACTICE AREAS

• Asbestos & Toxic Tort
• Product Liability
• Construction Liability
• Environmental Matters
• Personal Injury Defense
• Plaintiff Personal Injury

(c) Stevens, Drummond &
Gifford, Attorneys at Law

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Icon is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under permission from Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. in accord with the terms and conditions established by Martindale-Hubbell.

1   |   2   |   3      »      
 

Defense Verdict in a Hexavalent Chromium Groundwater Contamination Federal Court Jury Trial

After extensive Daubert hearings and a two month U.S. District Court trial in Fresno, the jury returned a defense verdict for our client, Meadowbrook Water Company of Merced, finding no hexavalent chromium contamination in groundwater pumped over 40 years. Over 2000 plaintiffs represented by Tom Girardi and Mick Marderosian alleged decades of hexavalent chromium contamination from a nearby wood treatment plant owned by Merck in drinking water supplied by our client. Discovery included analysis of tens of thousands of records from the polluter, remediators, Department of Public Health, Public Utilities Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, plus hundreds of depositions and dozens of experts. The court held several weeks of evidentiary hearings on Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs' computer groundwater model and ultimately appointed an independent hydrogeologist. In a 133 page memorandum decision Judge Oliver Wanger denied the motions and allowed into evidence a computer groundwater model predicting concentrations of hexavalent chromium in groundwater in excess of the maximum contaminant level for 40 years beginning in 1975. Despite the computer model the jury found hexavalent chromium released into the groundwater from the wood treatment plant never reached our client's water pumps. Judgment entered for Meadowbrook Water Company. (April 2011)

Roofer Settles Single Family Residence Mold Claims for Nominal Sum

Placer County owners of a new single family residence settled construction defect and mold claims against a roofing subcontractor for less than 1% of the alleged cost of repairs and remediation. Plaintiffs alleged water intrusion from defective roofing leading to elevated levels of penicillium, aspergillus, strachybotrys and cladosporium. Our expert showed the water intrusion was not due to the roofing subcontractor, leading to a nominal settlement. (September 2011)

Silicosis Case Against Drilling Equipment Manufacturer Remanded to Trial Court

The First District Court of Appeal overturned a judgment for our drilling equipment client and remanded the silicosis case to the San Francisco Superior Court. After successfully appealing a judgment of dismissal after demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, plaintiff failed to timely amend the complaint, and the trial court entered a second judgment for the defense. The appellate court overturned the second judgment. Now, after seven years of law and motion and two appeals, plaintiff's claims for strict liability for failure to warn against a manufacturer of generic, multi-use drilling equipment will go to trial following discovery involving 42 years of silica exposure during work as an equipment operator in underground tunnels and sand and gravel quarries at 17 jobsites for 13 employers. (May 2011)

Condominium Homeowners Association Settles Construction Defect Case with Roofer for less than 1% of

Our roofing client, the sole remaining defendant at trial, settled with the homeowners association at a major condominium development in Brisbane, San Mateo County, for less than 1% of the demand and alleged cost of repairs.  Experts for plaintiff homeowners association estimated several hundred thousand dollars to repair and replace roof shingles allegedly subject to blow-off and leaking.  Our client contended the developer and manufacturer rejected an installation method to prevent shingle blow-offs  At trial plaintiff settled with the developer, general contractor and all other subcontractors for in excess of $10 million.  The roofer settled for less than 1% of the joint demand from the plaintiff homeowners association and developer.  (2009)

Lung Cancer Settlement

During a recent trial in Alameda County in which our client was the last remaining defendant, we settled a living lung cancer asbestos claim with positive product identification for less than 10 percent of plaintiffs' demand.  (2011)

1   |   2   |   3      »