John V. McCoy

Stress disorder claims difficult, expensive to defend; just results possible.

Value of testimony can directly impact view of case on liability.

A common issue that can create a basis for liability in defending gas explosion cases is the level of odorant in the gas as it is emitted into the atmosphere. When people who are injured in a gas explosion testify that they did not smell gas, the focus immediately turns to the odorant in the gas.

Over several decades of having the privilege and honor to represent members of this industry when they are faced with stakes claims and lawsuits, a trend has developed that should not be ignored.

Our firm recently used a bill of lading argument as the foundation for dismissal from a mass toxic tort lawsuit in Arkansas.

When it comes to propane cylinders, a common and recurring theme is that the cylinder is refilled and distributed into the stream of commerce after the time permitted by its manufacture or recertification date.

Recent explosions from leaking gas lines in California and elsewhere have triggered a focus on the maintenance of gas transmission systems in general.

In many legal actions in the propane industry, expert witnesses play a critical role in cases where the liability of various parties to an accident is in question.

In Huitt v. Southern California Gas Co., a California Court of Appeals rejected a failure-to-warn claim brought against a natural gas utility in an odor-fade case. Although it involves natural gas, the legal principles of duty to warn and the concept of odor fade are virtually identical in a...more >>

An Illinois case points out the potential liability that may extend to trade associations assisting in retrofit and recall programs for products that are in the marketplace and may present harm to consumers.