Practice Areas & Industries: Kilpatrick Stockton LLP

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Kilpatrick Stockton Products Liability Litigation Group ("PLLG") recognizes that a products liability practice involves not only defending manufacturers but assisting clients in developing a consistent, cost-effective approach to risk management and litigation. Much of the firm's products liability defense work has been directly on behalf of manufacturers or distributors, rather than as counsel retained by an insurer. Even when the primary defense is assigned by a carrier to other counsel, our clients recognize the importance of using the firm to represent them on any uninsured exposure, to assure a coordinated response to discovery in similar cases, and to prepare company witnesses for testimony. In this role, we have served as coordinating counsel for a number of clients facing multiple products liability lawsuits. The PLLG also represents clients in defending defect claims under warranties, when no third-party claim is involved.

Kilpatrick Stockton has helped manufacturers of consumer products to minimize exposure when a voluntary recall is an appropriate remedy. Using experience in dealing with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, our lawyers have orchestrated voluntary recalls, with minimum adverse publicity, for products as diverse as children's toys, pacifiers, cigarette lighters, and gas space heaters.

The PLLG achieves its results for clients by combining litigation experience with the technical knowledge of its lawyers who have backgrounds in engineering, biological sciences, chemistry, and medicine. When toxic tort claims involving a discharge of pollutants into the environment overlap traditional product liability suits, Kilpatrick Stockton litigators draw on the experience of lawyers in the environmental law group to implement a coordinated strategy to address both third-party lawsuits and the potential for claims from regulatory authorities. Similarly, lawyers from our labor and employment practice group assist in developing a coordinated response to workplace bodily injury claims.

Representative Transactions

• Representing DuPont in defending trace benzene cases alleging leukemia and aplastic anemia in the Southeastern Region. Attended, took, and defended numerous lay and expert witness depositions. Prepared and argued several motions for summary judgment on various issues, including scientific and medical causation and federal preemption.
• Representing DuPont as appellate counsel on various matters nationwide.
• Serving as national products liability counsel for a prominent Japanese equipment manufacturer, including selection of counsel, litigation consultation with local counsel, preparation of company engineers, and case evaluation and settlement advice on claims arising out of personal injuries incurred by users of heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, front end loaders, and backhoes.
• Representing a national friction products manufacturer in responding to thousands of asbestos cases involving products liability and conspiracy claims
• Serving as litigation counsel in Georgia for a German automobile manufacturer in defending "crashworthiness" and other bodily injury claims.
• Serving as coordinating counsel for a large manufacturer of disposable butane lighters in bodily injury products liability cases.
• Defending an asbestos-containing building materials manufacturer in Georgia property damage litigation involving claims by building owners and establishing that the statute of limitations for property damage claims in Georgia is four years from the time of the injury, rather than from the purported discovery of the injury, and assisting in the defense of similar claims in other states.
• Serving as coordinating counsel to manufacturers of solvents and cleaning products in toxic exposure claims and developing an internal risk management program.
• Litigating for a manufacturer of pre-stressed concrete pipe in property damage suits in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma, and other jurisdictions.
• Defending a foundry owner against several hundred silicosis exposure claims.
• Defending a manufacturer of space heaters in bodily injury lawsuits.
• Representing a client in recovering insurance for the costs of a product recall and other expenses associated with defect claims for a support bracket.
• Successfully defending a telephone equipment manufacturer and installer against claims that a telephone answering machine caused a fire that destroyed a home.
• Defending a materials handling equipment manufacturer against allegations that a defective crane failed to meet specifications, causing very substantial business interruption damages.
• Obtaining summary judgment for a health care devices manufacturer on a claim that its mammography machine was defectively designed.
• Successfully defending a telephone equipment manufacturer against claims for a defective transformer.
• Defending a textile machinery manufacturer in products liability.
• Defending a three-wheeler dealer in a North Carolina litigation suit alleging design defects and breaches of warranty.
• Defending several automobile manufacturers in product liability cases and warranty claims in North Carolina.
• Representing various defendants involved in aviation litigation.
• Representing a manufacturer of "cherry-picker" trucks in personal injury claims.
• Defending a light bulb manufacturer in a case involving allegedly exploding lamps that caused a factory fire.
• Representing the North American subsidiary of a manufacturer of industrial equipment in various claims based upon alleged improper process engineering and alleged defective components manufactured and/or sold by the subsidiary.
• Defending a manufacturer in a case involving an allegedly defective valve for an icemaker.
• Representing E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") in defending and coordinating over 40 suits and over 150 individual claims involving property damages and contracts in Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii; dispositive motions in favor of DuPont granted by district courts in Florida and Georgia; affirmed in the Eleventh Circuit in the Georgia case, applying Georgia law; affirmed in the Eleventh Circuit in the Florida case, applying Florida law; dispositive questions certified to three separate state supreme courts.