Meg Gambino focuses her practice on toxic tort, environmental and product liability litigation. Since 1984, she has been actively involved in the defense of national and local clients in asbestos personal injury lawsuits, and she currently oversees all asbestos litigation engagements in the firm’s San Francisco office.
Clients Meg has represented in these matters run the gamut from turbine manufacturers and microchip makers to construction managers and automotive companies. These clients have been manufacturers and suppliers of thermal insulation, industrial and friction products, and asbestos cement pipe. Meg is a well-known and respected trial attorney and has attained efficient and favorable resolution of hundreds of asbestos cases, individually and as part of negotiated claims processing agreements.
Meg also has extensive experience defending chemical companies in cases where a variety of toxic exposures have been alleged. She has handled pharmaceutical and environmental litigation as well. She has negotiated favorable settlements in enforcement actions brought by environmental groups under the Clean Water Act and represented potentially responsible parties, including underground tank owners, in Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and other cost recovery actions.
Meg’s reputation among judges, plaintiffs’ counsel and the defense community involved in asbestos litigation is among the greatest assets she offers to her clients. She served for two years on a committee formed by the San Francisco Superior Court comprised of judges and plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys to draft the General Order for mandatory e-filing in asbestos litigation. Meg consulted on proposed language for the Order and represented the position of the defense community on various issues. She also participated on another court-ordered committee to propose revisions to the settlement procedures for asbestos cases.
Awards & Distinctions
AV Preeminent Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
Rated by American Lawyer and Martindale-Hubbell as a Top Rated Lawyer in Mass Torts, 2013
Selected for inclusion in Northern California Super Lawyers, 2013
Round Three: California Appellate Courts Home in on Duty of Care in Household Asbestos Exposure
Duty of Care in Second-hand Asbestos Exposure
July 1, 2014
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District holds that a landowner owes no duty of care to a third party who was exposed to asbestos through a person who worked on the landowner’s premises, where the only cause of action is for premises liability. This decision came just over two weeks after the First District held that an employer owed a duty of care to a third party for exposure to asbestos through contact with its employee where the foreseeability of harm was substantial, based on negligence and products liability.
California Court of Appeal Overturns Nonsuit Granted in Household Exposure Asbestos Case Where Trial Court’s Decision Was Based on Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.
Duty of Care to Third Party for Exposure to Asbestos
June 3, 2014
In weighing the foreseeability of harm as a significant factor, the California Court of Appeal found that there is a high degree of foreseeability of harm from take-home asbestos exposure to those whose contact with an employer’s workers “ is not merely incidental, such as members of their household or long-term occupants of the residence.”
California Court of Appeal Holds Intermediary’s Sophistication Not Sufficient, as a Matter of Law, to Avoid Supplier’s Liability for Injury to Product User
“ Intermediary’s Sophistication” versus Supplier’s Liability
November 7, 2013
While a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal is unfavorable to defendants, it does not completely close the door to the viability of the “ sophisticated intermediary” defense. The Court says it is not enough for a supplier defendant to simply show the plaintiff was an employee of a sophisticated intermediary to avoid liability. The supplier must also show it had sufficient reason to believe the ultimate user knew or should have known of the hazards.
DRI Publishes Article on Section III of the MMSEA Authored by Wilson Elser Toxic Tort Team
April 20, 2012 DRI - the Defense Research Institute - has published an article on Section III of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA) written by Meg Gambino, Steve Joffe and Maria Caruana in the April 2012 issue of For The Defense.
Chartis’s Legal Insights Publishes Two Articles by Wilson Elser Attorneys in the Winter 2012 Issue
January 10, 2012 Legal Insights has published two articles by California-based Wilson Elser attorneys in its winter 2012 issue.
CA Court of Appeal Upholds Award of Defendant’s Expert Fees Under CCP 998 Offer to Compromise
November 7, 2011 Although the Court did not create new law in the recent case of Adams v. Ford Motor Company, the opinion underscores the importance of offers to compromise under section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, particularly those that include a mutual waiver of cost provision.
CA Court of Appeal Requires Treating Physicians Be Designated as Experts When Testifying to Subjects Outside the Scope of a Treating Physician
November 7, 2011 The first opinion underscored the importance of offers to compromise under section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, particularly those that include a mutual waiver of cost provision. The second case held that when a treating physician received additional materials after his deposition to enable him to testify to opinions about adherence to the standard of care by another physician, his role became that of a retained expert.
“ Taming the MMSEA Beast: Special Challenges for the Toxic Torts Practitioner, ” For The Defense, April 2012
“ A Survey of Recent Asbestos Verdicts in California” Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada, 2009.
“ Boyle v. Certainteed Corporation: The Defense Perspective, ” HarrisMartin California Asbestos and Silica Conference, 2006.
Wilson Elser Obtains Dismissal in Asbestos Case Following $3.0 Million Demand
November 8, 2013
DiMarco and Grogan Successfully Quash Critical Subpoenas Related to Asbestos Litigation
May 13, 2011
Erik DiMarco (Partner-New York) and Elizabeth Grogan (Associate-Albany) successfully moved to quash subpoenas directed to Wilson Elser’s client, a global engineering, construction and project management company.