Scott P. DeVries

An experienced trial lawyer, Scott focuses his practice on class and mass torts, product liability, insurance coverage, and complex civil litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.

Scott has more than 30 years of experience in complex litigation for companies faced with major toxic tort, environmental, and insurance coverage, including Aerojet-General Corporation, GenCorp, Nucor Corporation, Precision Cast Parts, Monsanto, BP, and URS. His recent representations have involved complex multi-party litigation, insurance contract disputes (representing policyholders exclusively), product liability matters with an emphasis on mass and class torts, and environmental actions.

Scott tried to jury one of the landmark cases in the field of environmental mass torts – Higgins, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation and Cordova Chemical Company. There, after a three month jury trial, a California jury rendered a complete defense verdict.

He subsequently tried four more cases involving environmental issues, three of them to jury. In the mass tort area, he tried to jury a case in which plaintiffs claimed that chemical exposure caused injuries and deaths. He tried two cases in which insurers challenged whether various fees and expenses were reasonable and necessary to the policyholder’s defense of underlying environmental and mass tort litigation. He also tried one case to jury on the insurers’ obligation to indemnify the insured for various environmental settlements.

In addition, Scott routinely represents clients in appellate courts, where, for example, he obtained a groundbreaking decision in Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport et al., in which the California Supreme Court held that the duty to defend included RI/FS and other expense where so long as a purpose of the expense was to further defense, and where a loss potentially triggers multiple policy periods, each insurer is severally and independently liable for the complete defense and is not entitled to seek defense from a “self- insured.” In April 2007, he obtained a decision on behalf of Tosoh SET from the First Appellate District (California) that advertising injury coverage covers direct as well as indirect forms of disparagement. In 2010, he led the insurance team in securing a groundbreaking win for the policyholder in Hyundai Motor Am. V. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, PA., the 9th Circuit holding that allegations of patent infringement involving a method of advertising (vehicle building feature on website) constituted advertising injury and triggered the insurer’s duty to defend a patent infringement suit.

Relevant Experience

• Defending a global energy company in a mass tort suit involving the Carson Refinery in Los Angeles. The action, pending in a California state court, names more than 260 plaintiffs alleging an assortment of physical and mental injuries, as well as increased need for medical monitoring and diminution in property values. The plaintiffs claim their injuries were caused by the release of various chemicals.
• Defending a global environmental consulting firm in a mass tort suit involving the Ringwood Mines Landfill Superfund site. The action, pending in a New Jersey state court, consists of 45 consolidated cases naming more than 700 plaintiffs alleging an assortment of physical and mental injuries, as well as diminution in property values. The plaintiffs claim their injuries were caused by the disposal of various chemicals and a failure to properly remediate the site.
• Representing an international consumer products company which received a Proposition 65 notice in California and was sued in a class action alleging consumer fraud and seeking medical monitoring in Illinois. After working with consultants to develop conclusive evidence that the plaintiffs could not have been exposed to any chemicals emanating from our client’s product, the Prop 65 letter was withdrawn.
• Allen, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation and Cordova Chemical Company, et al., and Daphne Adams, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation and Cordova Chemical Company, et al. Represented both defendants in these mass and class toxic tort cases. In the class action, plaintiff sought to certify a class for medical monitoring and stigma damages; the court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to certify. In the mass action, 500 plaintiffs claimed personal injuries, including death, associated with exposure to defendant’s chemicals (TCE, NDMA, and Perchlorate). Pre-trial activity resulted in the dismissal of 490 of the 500 plaintiffs. A 10-week jury trial in 2005 resulted in a defense verdict for Cordova, a defense verdict for Aerojet as respects four plaintiffs, and a plaintiff verdict against Aerojet on the remainder. The case was settled thereafter.
• American States Water Company v. Aerojet-General Corporation. Represented defendant in action alleging chemical releases damaged plaintiffs’ interest in groundwater. Case settled after motions in limine argued.
• Baker v. Motorola et al. and Lofgren, et al. v. Motorola, et al. Represented defendant Nucor Corporation in (1) a class action brought by Scottsdale and Phoenix residents alleging that chemical releases to air and groundwater diminished property value and increased the need for medical monitoring, and (2) a personal injury action brought by over 200 plaintiffs. After a three-week Daubert hearing, the trial court rejected all of plaintiffs’ medical causation experts and entered judgment for defendants. The case settled thereafter.
• Higgins, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation and Cordova Chemical Company and McCann v. Aerojet-General Corporation and Cordova Chemical Company. Represented defendants in mass and class toxic tort litigation in which (1) 70 plaintiffs claimed personal injuries including death, increased risk of cancer, and property damage associated with exposure to defendant’s chemicals, and (2) plaintiffs sought to certify a medical monitoring class. The court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to certify a class. Obtained defense verdict after three-month jury trial in 1986.
• From 1988 to 1994, represented Monsanto in various cases from Texas through California involving exposure to an herbicide product, including Mathis, et al. v. Monsanto, where plaintiffs alleged that exposure to defendant’s product caused death, and Villarial v. Monsanto, where plaintiff alleged that exposure to defendant’s product caused brain damage.

• Named Lawyer of the Year for Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, San Francisco, Best Lawyers in America, 2020-2022
• Selected as a Best Lawyer for Insurance Law, Commercial Litigation and Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions – Defendants, Best Lawyers in America, 2006-present
• Selected as a Top Rated Insurance Coverage Attorney in San Francisco, CA, Super Lawyers, 2004-present
• Martindale-Hubbell, AV Rating (highest rating possible)
• Fellow, American Bar Foundation
• Fellow, American College of Coverage Counsel
• Editorial Board Member, Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation
• Editorial Board Member (Former), Environmental Claims Journal
• Editorial Board Member (Former), Toxics Law Reporter

• Member, California Bar Association
• Member, New York Bar Association