Asbestos Verdict:
In 1986, the Ken McClain won a landmark trial for a Missouri school district against an asbestos manufacturer, one of the first successful asbestos-injury and property damage verdicts. These early efforts helped pave the way for holding companies accountable for asbestos hazards in schools and workplaces.
Landmark Tobacco Settlement:
HFM took a leading role in national tobacco litigation. In 1996, senior partner Ken McClain negotiated a confidential settlement with Liggett Group – reportedly the first time a cigarette manufacturer ever settled a smoking-related lawsuit. This breakthrough came before the industry-wide Master Settlement and marked HFM as a pioneer in tobacco product liability cases.
PCB Contamination Verdict:
In a Pennsylvania environmental case, HFM helped secure a $46.5 million jury verdict over PCB contamination linked to a state transportation facility. The litigation involved toxic polychlorinated biphenyls at a PennDOT building that had to be demolished after a fire revealed extensive contamination. The verdict held the responsible companies liable for cleanup costs and community damages from the chemical exposure.
“Popcorn Lung” Cases:
HFM spearheaded litigation over butter-flavoring chemicals (diacetyl) that caused severe lung disease (“popcorn lung”). In 2004, the firm won a $20 million jury verdict for Eric Peoples, a Missouri factory worker whose lungs were irreparably damaged by inhaling microwave popcorn flavoring fumes. Over the next decade, HFM obtained numerous high-value verdicts and settlements for affected workers and consumers – including a $7.2 million award in 2012 for a daily popcorn consumer – with total recoveries exceeding well over $100 million in the popcorn flavoring cases.
Metalworking Fluid Exposure:
HFM continued to achieve major workplace exposure verdicts. In 2013, a Laclede County, Missouri jury awarded $28 million in Berger v. Copeland Corporation. The case involved a 56-year-old factory worker who suffered chronic lung inflammation after years of breathing mist from metalworking coolant fluids at a compressor manufacturing plant. The verdict (including $23 million in punitive damages) punished the company for failing to protect workers from toxic inhalants on the job.
TCE Groundwater Pollution:
Demonstrating leadership in environmental exposure litigation, HFM won a significant federal jury verdict for a community exposure case in Joplin, Missouri. In 2016, a jury awarded $20.6 million to a young woman who developed autoimmune liver disease (AIH) after growing up near a ball-bearing plant that had polluted the groundwater with trichloroethylene (TCE). This verdict (with $13 million in punitive damages) held the manufacturer responsible for years of unchecked TCE dumping and the health consequences to local residents.
Sulfur Dioxide:
HFM obtained a groundbreaking result against a utility over toxic coal ash. In 2017, a Missouri trial court judge ordered more than $11 million in damages to a power plant maintenance worker who developed severe respiratory illness from exposure to coal ash and dust at Evergy’s Montrose coal-fired power station
Formaldehyde in Hair Products:
HFM continues to lead in emerging toxic tort cases. In 2025, the firm filed a major lawsuit on behalf of hair stylists exposed to formaldehyde in popular hair-smoothing treatments resulting in a groundbreaking $30 million dollar settlement. The ongoing litigation alleges that salon professionals suffered cancer and other serious health effects from repeated inhalation of the treatment’s chemical fumes. By taking on the manufacturers of the product, HFM is at the forefront of holding cosmetic companies accountable for hazardous substances, extending the firm’s long track record of advocacy in toxic exposure and product liability cases.
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Visiting this site or contacting us through the site does not create an attorney-client relationship. This site may be considered attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Our attorneys are licensed to practice in Missouri, and we do not seek to represent clients in jurisdictions where our marketing would not comply with local laws or rules.
