May 19, 2019

Michael W. Weaver

Michael W. Weaver focuses his national practice on product liability litigation which includes representing medical device, manufacturing, and consumer goods clients in complex litigation matters. He counsels clients on product recalls and compliance with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standards and labeling requirements.

He also advises companies on litigation risks associated with business decisions and commercial disputes which include significant experience in enforcing or opposing non-compete / non-solicitation employment provisions in the context of temporary restraining orders and/or preliminary injunctions.

RESULTS

  • Serves as regional coordinator on a national counsel team representing a Fortune 100 company in its mass tort litigation; oversees and manages a significant docket of claims, which regularly includes significant complex medical and scientific issues, and handles all aspects of the overall defense strategy, including several appellate successes:

    • Schwartz v. Honeywell International Inc., 2018-Ohio-474, in which the Ohio Supreme Court reversed a multi-million dollar jury verdict by rejecting the application of the “cumulative exposure” theory to establish causation

    • Watkins v. Affinia Group., 2016-Ohio-2830, 54 N.E.3d 174 (8th Dist.), in which the Ohio Appellate Court reversed the jury verdict based on the improper admission of expert testimony

    • Gillenwater v. Honeywell International Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120929, 996 N.E.2d 1179 (4th Dist. 2013) further review denied at 3 N.E.3d 795 (Ill. 2014), in which the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s reversal of a multimillion-dollar jury verdict that was based on plaintiff’s allegation that certain companies conspired to suppress health and safety information concerning asbestos

  • Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 2012 IL App (4th) 100904, 975 N.E.2d 345 (4th Dist. 2012) in which the Illinois Appellate Court overturned a multimillion-dollar jury verdict that was based on plaintiff’s allegation that certain companies conspired to suppress health and safety information concerning asbestos

  • In re Estate of Hoogerwerf, 2012 IL App (4th) 110329, in which the Illinois Appellate Court vacated a default judgment based on the trial court’s improper application of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237

  • Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 2011 IL App (4th) 100463, 957 N.E.2d 107 (4th Dist. 2011), in which the Illinois Appellate Court overturned a multimillion-dollar jury verdict that was based on plaintiff’s allegation that certain companies conspired to suppress health and safety information concerning asbestos

  • Estate of Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 2011 IL App (4th) 100462, 955 N.E.2d 1173 (4th Dist. 2011), in which the Illinois Appellate Court overturned a multimillion-dollar jury verdict finding there is no duty owed to plaintiff in a household or “take-home” asbestos exposure case

Articles in the National Law Review database by Michael W. Weaver

LATEST LEGAL NEWS & ANALYSIS

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS