For over 30 years, the Firm handled high exposure cases involving claims for wrongful death and personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products For approximately half of that time, the Firm served as regional and national coordinating counsel on behalf of General Motors Corporation, handling thousands of cases involving alleged exposures to asbestos-containing brake, clutch, locomotive and other products, as well as premises cases. Our attorneys have extensive trial experience and technical knowledge concerning claims of alleged exposures to asbestos and other potentially toxic substances

Our Firm is dedicated to providing our clients with quality representation in the most cost effective, yet thorough manner in order to achieve a swift resolution. These efficiencies are achieved through innovative "lawyering", as well as through a state-of-the-art computerized system, providing online litigation support, database management, calendaring, document scanning, and legal research. These systems permit the Firm to handle diverse, complex litigation more efficiently and at a lower cost to our clients.

The Firm is noted for its creative strategies and willingness to develop the law in pursuit of our clients' best interests. Each client is represented by an exceptional group of attorneys who specialize in areas that are uniquely suited to their skills.

Product Liability Product liability is a major commitment of GCS. The Firm is dedicated to preserving the reputation of its clients' products, as well as the integrity of their scientific and technological advancements. The firm has handled hundreds of high exposure cases involving virtually every component system of a motor vehicle. Over the years the firm has also represented manufacturers of a wide range of products such as tires, CNC machines, roller coasters, propane tanks, valves, seat belts, agricultural products, irrigation and landscape equipment, electrical equipment, vending machines, and other consumer products. Back to Top Personal Injury and General Liability The Firm has successfully handled high exposure personal injury and general liability matters that range from automobile accidents to electrocution cases to breach of contract matters. In regard to personal injury matters, the Firm's background and ex[erience in defense matters complements and enhances its ability to handle these cases to maximize the potential return to the client. Its investment in and dedication to a case is unparalleled. Every client has complete access to our vast legal and financial resources. If the case is contingency based, no initial fees are incurred by the client. Compensation occurs only after money is recovered in the case, as regulated by law. Back to Top Construction Litigation The Firm has successfully represented architects, engineers, developers, contractors and subcontractors in alleged design/build errors and omissions, work-site injuries and toxic/environmental pollution-related claims for several decades. Our attorneys have litigation and jury trial experience, ranging from large, highly regulated public entity projects, commercial, industrial and condominium homeowner association design/construction defect cases, land subsidence and flooding claims, structural failure and toxic waste dump clean-up litigation to construction site catastrophic injuries and death. Back to Top Trucking Litigation The Firm also represents the unique interests and concerns of trucking companies. These matters involve accidents with other vehicles, contractual disputes and matters dealing with trucking regulations. Back to Top Professional Liability The Firm has specially trained attorneys to handle the analysis and defense of complex Errors and Omissions claims, including the defense of architects, engineers, medical professionals, veterinarians, attorneys, automobile dealerships, insurance agents and brokers. Back to Top Asbestos Litigation For over 24 years, the Firm handled high exposure cases involving claims for wrongful death and personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products For more than 10 years, the Firm served as regional and national coordinating counsel on behalf of General Motors Corporation, handling thousands of cases involving alleged exposures to asbestos-containing brake, clutch and other products. Our attorneys have extensive trial experience and technical knowledge concerning claims of alleged exposures to asbestos and other allegedly toxic substances. Back to Top Appellate Practice Since its inception, the Firm, its predecessor and its members have also been at the "cutting edge" in developing favorable law for our clients. The Firm's attorneys have extensive experience in handling appellate matters before the state and federal Courts of Appeal in California. The Firm's appellate department complements and supports all of the other practice areas, providing our clients with a full-service law firm that vigorously pursues our client's rights from initial case handling, trial and through any necessary appellate process. The appellate cases handled by the Firm over the years include the following: Dozier v. Bridgestone/Firestone North America, 2004 Cal.App. Unpub. Lexis 187 (January 9, 2004) Affirmed an order dismissing the plaintiff's action, holding the trial court would have abused its discretion if it had granted plaintiffs any relief from the judgment, since plaintiffs failed to present a legally satisfactory excuse for their counsel's claimed excusable neglect and they also failed to satisfy the reasonable diligence requirement of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473. Defer v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 3937 (November 21, 2003) Affirmed an order imposing a terminating sanction to dismiss the plaintiff's action, holding the plaintiff had a pre-litigation duty to preserve evidence that he knew or should have known was relevant to his claims and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that a manufacturer has a co-equal duty to preserve evidence that is not within its control. Illinois Tool Works v. Fallin, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8867 (September 23, 2002) Affirmed an order granting a motion to quash, holding due process principles precluded the exercise of personal jurisdiction against two individual officers of a corporation based on the corporation's contacts with California. Scheiding v. General Motors Corporation, 22 Cal.4th 471, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d (2000) Established that field preemption applies under the Locomotive Boiler and Inspection Act to preclude product liability and other state common law causes of action for alleged defects in the design of locomotive equipment. Southwest Pet Products v. Koch Industries, 89 F. Supp.2d 1115 (D.Az 2000) Economic loss doctrine applied to preclude product liability and negligence claims for allegedly defective ingredients that were incorporated into and allegedly rendered the finished product unfit for its intended purpose. Pruitt v. General Motors Corporation, 72 Cal.App.4th 1480, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 4 (1999) Established the consumer expectation test could not be relied on to support a plaintiff's product liability claim for an alleged design defect in an airbag system. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953,67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 (1997) (the Firm submitted an amicus curiae brief), rejected application of the Summers v. Tice alternative/burden shifting rule and established that a plaintiff, in an action for asbestos-related injuries, must establish some threshold exposure to a defendant's product, and further establish, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 16 Cal.4th 520, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 438 (1997) (the Firm submitted an amicus curiae brief), established that Proposition 51 applies to limit a tortfeasor's liability for non-economic damages solely to its percentage of fault in an action for damages arising from latent and progressive disease (such as asbestos-related mesothelioma), regardless of the date of exposure to the product at issue, if the plaintiff was diagnosed with the disease or otherwise did not discover his illness/injury until after June 4, 1986, the effective date of Proposition 51. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1996), established that misrepresentations in an investment prospectus do not constitute "any negligent act, error or omission in the use of advertising or merchandising ideas" to give rise to potential "advertising injury" coverage. This is the first case in the nation interpreting this phrase. Darden v. General Motors Corp., 40 Cal.App.4th 349, 47 Cal.Rptr. 580 (1995), established that the statute of limitations for a product liability action based upon exposure to asbestos cannot be tolled indefinitely. Diaz v. United Agricultural Workers Benefit Plan, 50 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1995), established that an employee benefit plan for migrant workers under ERISA was sufficient if the appeal rights, but not the basis for denial of the claim, were written in both English and Spanish. Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 (1994), significantly limited application of the consumer expectation test in design defect cases. Soule cites with approval Endicott v. Nissan Motor Co., 73 Cal.App.3d 914, 141 Cal.Rptr. 951 (1977), another one of the Firm's published appellate decisions. General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.4th 435, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 (1993), established that a general release of an alleged negligent motorist and "all other persons, firms and corporations" also releases a manufacturer subsequently sued by the plaintiff, even though the manufacturer was not specifically named or identified in the release. Autoland. Inc. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.3d 857,252 Cal.Rptr. 662(1988), established the right to peremptorily challenge a discovery referee. St. Paul Mercury Ins. V. Medical Lab Network, 690 F.Supp. 901 (C.D.Cal. 1988), holds coverage for accidental events does not extend to "tortious constructive discharge" of an employee claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Ralee Engineering Co., 804 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1986), established that coverage for accidental events does not extend to intentional discharge of an employee and the insurer may obtain reimbursement of defense costs if it has specifically reserved that right, recently reaffirmed in Buss v. Superior Ct., currently pending before the California Supreme Court. Soto v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 184 Cal.App.3d 420, 229 Cal.Rptr. 192 (1986), declared workers' compensation is an exclusive remedy for alleged unreasonable delay in payment of benefits and family members of the insured have no cause of action under the Unfair Practices Act. Mercury Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 179 Cal.App.3d 1027, 225 Cal.Rptr. 100 (1986), established the prevailing plaintiff in a personal injury suit may not collaterally attack the size of a judgment by suing the insurer and the defense expert and that an insurer may decline to settle a case it thinks will be won at trial. California Shoppers v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 221 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1985), reversed a $7 million "bad faith" award in a case tried by another firm and established that an expert witness may not testify concerning his legal conclusion that a carrier has acted in "bad faith." Guzman v. General Motors Corp., 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 201 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1984), established that a manufacturer may file amended discovery responses without penalty. In Zieman Mfg. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 724 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit held that no automatic conflict of interest arises between the insurer and the insured whenever a claim for punitive damages is made. Zieman preceded Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union, 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 200 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1984) (not litigated by Grace, Genson, Cosgrove & Schirm), which disagreed with Zieman and led to infamous abuse by "Cumis" counsel. In 1987 the California legislature enacted Civil Code Section 2860 which, inter alia, adopted the Zieman analysis. City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 151 Cal.Rptr. 494 (1979), holds public policy prevents indemnity for malicious prosecution and punitive damages based upon the insured's willful acts. Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380 (1978), established that principles of comparative fault apply to product liability claims. Endicott v. Nissan Motor Co., 73 Cal.App.3d 914, 141 Cal.Rptr. 95(1977), established plaintiff must prove enhancement of injuries in "crashworthiness" cases. Self v. General Motors Corp., 42 Cal.App.3d, 116 Cal.Rptr. 575 (1974) (handled on appeal by a founder of the predecessor Firm), established superseding cause as a defense. Back to Top