At Foley Hoag, we have a national practice defending companies against product liability and other complex tort claims, including as national and regional counsel and in class actions and other mass claims. Our lawyers are from top law schools, have deep industry knowledge and are active in national defense bar and civil justice reform efforts. Our creative case-specific strategies produce excellent results at excellent value. We also provide claim prevention and regulatory compliance expertise.
Client Successes more
-
Medical Device Class Action
We defended a modest-sized orthopedic device manufacturer faced with a federal court national class action lawsuit involving the company’s hip implant. The plaintiffs’ own implants had not failed but plaintiffs claimed the implant had an excessive failure rate and violated implied warranties, the Massachusetts unfair and deceptive practices statute and similar statutes of other states. Plaintiffs claimed class members had been harmed because the implants were not worth what the class members had paid for them.
To try to spare the company the expense of prolonged litigation, we moved to dismiss the suit immediately. We argued that under the law of the state in which plaintiffs resided, and Massachusetts law, they had not suffered any legal injury because their implants were functioning properly. Our arguments under Massachusetts law were based on interpretations of several decisions by the state’s highest court, in almost all of which we had represented either a party or an amicus curiae (friend of the court). The court accepted our arguments and dismissed the suit.
[Read More]
-
Asbestos National Counsel
For a number of years we have been national counsel to a major valve manufacturer facing hundreds of asbestos suits involving tens of thousands of plaintiffs in at least 18 different states. Many of the claims involve serious injury or death from respiratory cancers that are linked to asbestos exposure, at least at certain doses. Companies faced with such litigation have frequently decided to conduct a brief defense and then settle, to avoid both further litigation costs and the risk of a judgment greater than the available settlement.
After we investigated the critical scientific and medical literature, our client determined not to adopt the “traditional” strategy, believing the scientific data would not support an adverse verdict and settling meritless claims only encouraged more suits. By thoroughly probing the basis for plaintiffs’ claims, moving for summary judgment and principled negotiating, we have resolved hundreds of suits without payments.
[Read More]