When evaluating a potential attorney to represent your legal issue, it is important to understand the type of litigation that has been the focus of their practice in the past. At the Doyle Law Firm, we represent people and small businesses. We refuse to represent big oil, insurance, banks, or pharmaceutical companies. The litigation described below is a taste of the cases we've handled. If you've suffered an injury and are curious as to whether we might be able to represent you, do not hesitate to call us at the number above. In many instances, we can steer you towards one of our colleagues at another firm who has a niche practice. And, we're happy to do so.

Dangerous Drug Litigation

Before a newly developed drug can be sold commercially, it must first endure an exhaustive clinical trial process through which it is tested for safety, toxicity, side effects and efficacy. The final phase of any drug clinical trial revolves around Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, clearing it for distribution.

FDA approval does not void a drug manufacturer's liability for defects or severe side effects that are caused as a result of using their drugs; rather, the FDA is simply an overseer of the drug application and a receiver of the drug company's reports detailing their clinical trials. Generally speaking, drug manufacturers are required to take comprehensive measures to ensure that their products are safe. Failure to disclose and warn of side effects, defects, or other such complications associated with their drugs is negligent and grounds for legal action. The purpose of the clinical trial process is to test the drug across a wide variety of populations so as to monitor sporadic issues affecting specific groups (gender, age, race, etc.)

Although the final phase of any drug clinical trial revolves around long-term studies designed to monitor the effects of continued use of the drug, latent defects can present themselves after FDA approval of the drug and after it has been widely distributed and used. This is often where pharmaceutical companies get into trouble as they often struggle with the decision to disclose harmful side effects and, potentially, forego the huge profits that accompany "blockbuster" drugs.

Our firm has represented individuals who have been injured as a result of a variety of unsafe (often "blockbuster") drugs, including:

  • Avandia
  • Baycol
  • Bextra
  • Celebrex
  • Chantix
  • Digitek
  • Fen-Phen
  • Levaquin
  • Paxil
  • Seroquel
  • Trasylol
  • Vioxx
  • Zelnorm
  • Zyprexa

If you took a pharmaceutical drug (not on this list) and suffered an adverse reaction, you may have grounds to bring a product liability lawsuit. Too often, drug companies put profits over the public's welfare. Although the FDA is in place to protect the public from unsafe pharmaceuticals, they often discover the problem only after the damage has been done.

In most parts of the country, a plaintiff in a pharmaceutical products liability case must first prove that the drug is defective. That claim against a pharmaceutical company can be based on the way the drug was created and tested, the way the drug was manufactured, and the way the drug was marketed. Marketing defects are particularly abundant in drug defect cases, and involve improper instructions and failures to warn consumers about a dangerous aspect of the product.

Proving that the pharmaceutical was defective is the most difficult and important aspect of a pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit. It requires the services of a variety of experts and a law firm with a history of handling defective drug cases, with experience it takes to effectively gather and organize the crucial information. At the Doyle Law Firm, we have the resources and experience it takes to successfully pursue a products liability action based on a defective or dangerous drug.

Defective Product Litigation

Defectice products come in all sorts of shapes and sizes - chemicals, breast implants, engines, contraceptives, farm machines, and the list goes on and on. The following sections give you a taste of the cases we've focused on over the past 10 years. The list is not comprehensive, but is intended to give you an idea about the breadth of our practice.


Automobiles have come a long way since the Model A was introduced by Henry Ford; however, over the years, the automotive industry has chosen to make tradeoffs that have caused injuries to its customers and their passengers. Lawsuits against some of the major automobile manufacturers have resulted in substantial verdicts or settlements for our clients. We are well versed in handling the following types of cases:
  • Rollover
  • Roof Crush
  • Defective Suspension
  • Defective Seat Back
  • Defective Seatbelt
  • Defective Airbag


Asbestos litigation is the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S. history, involving more than 8,000 defendants and 700,000 claimants. According to the Environmental Working Group Action Fund, 10,000 people a year die from asbestos-caused diseases in the United States, including one out of every 125 American men who die over the age of 50. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no general ban on the use of asbestos; however, asbestos was one of the first hazardous air pollutants regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act of 1970, and many applications have been forbidden by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). According to a September 2004 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, asbestos is still a hazard for 1.3 million US workers in the construction industry and for workers involved in the maintenance of buildings and equipment.

Current trends indicate that the rate at which people are diagnosed with the disease will likely increase through the next decade. Analysts have estimated that the total costs of asbestos litigation in the USA alone will eventually reach $200 to $275 billion. The amounts and method of allocating compensation have been the source of many court cases, and government attempts at resolution of existing and future cases.

We currently represent victims of asbestos exposure across the United States and will continue to evaluate, accept, and file asbestosis and mesothelioma case for the foreseeable future, wherever the victims are located. If you are suffering from an asbestos-related condition, we will closely evaluate your case and provide a free legal consultation. We look forward to speaking with you.

Synthetic Stucco / EIFS

Although often called "synthetic stucco", EIFS is not stucco. Traditional stucco is a centuries-old non-insulating material which consists of aggregate, a binder, and water, and is a hard, dense, thick, non-insulating material. EIFS is a lightweight synthetic wall cladding that includes foam plastic insulation and thin synthetic coatings. There are also specialty stuccos that use synthetic materials but no insulation, and these are also not EIFS either. A common example is what is called one-coat stucco, which is a thick, synthetic stucco applied in a single layer (traditional stucco is applied in 3 layers). There is also an EIFS-like product called a direct-applied finish system (or DAFS), which is essentially an EIFS but without the insulation, and has quite different characteristics.

EIFS systems have been the subject of several lawsuits, mostly related to the installation process and failure of the system causing moisture buildups and subsequent mold growth. The basic underlying problem behind EIFS litigation was that EIFS was marketed as a cost-effective replacement for stucco. Stucco is expensive to install because it cracks over time. Stucco must be carefully applied by skilled craftsmen so that the cracks which will inevitably develop are subtle and not obvious. General contractors switched to EIFS because it was supposed to be easy to install with unskilled or semi-skilled labor and would not crack like traditional stucco. Although EIFS if properly installed according to the manufacturer's directions should not have water intrusion problems, many GCs cut corners by using unqualified labor. In turn, thousands of EIFS installations were noncompliant and suffered severe water intrusion and mold as a result. While the EIFS industry has consistently tried to shift the blame to GCs, the construction industry has retorted that using professional unionized journeymen carpenters in turn eliminates the cost advantage of EIFS over stucco, and that the EIFS industry should have anticipated this issue and engineered its products from the beginning to be installed by unskilled labor or semi-skilled labor (that is, it should have been a fault-tolerant design).

Since the 1990s, EIFS litigation has been a thorn in the side of the construction and insurance industries. Continuing liability in many jurisdictions means that litigation is possible for properties that continue to suffer the effects of improperly applied synthetic stucco. Our firm continues to evaluate potential EIFS/Synthetic Stucco claims.

Fraud Litigation

Fraud litigation is a term used to describe a civil lawsuit that involves one party suing another party for engaging in fraudulent conduct. In this context, fraud generally means that, by intentionally misrepresenting the truth, one party induced another party to give up a legal right or to surrender something of value. A fraud case should be handled by an attorney that has handled cases in this area.

As a general rule, plaintiffs must first demonstrate that a defendant made a material representation of fact. Secondly, they must prove that the defendant knew the representation was false. Thirdly, the plaintiffs must establish that the defendant intended for the plaintiffs to rely on the false representation. As part of the fourth element, they must establish that they reasonably believed the defendant and relied on the defendant’s misrepresentation. Finally, it must be shown that as a result of the defendants’ misrepresentation, they were harmed.

Automobile Financing

Automobile financing companies, both through dealerships and independently, often mislead and defraud car purchasers through a concerted effort. Our attorneys successfully handled this litigation against a large number of automobile dealerships and financing arms of major manufacturers across the Gulf Coast - and we recovered a substantial sum for our clients - however, several state supreme courts have now reversed verdicts and provided immunity to the tortfeasors from this point forward. We are extremely pleased that we achieved a recovery for our clients, but we are no longer accepting these types of cases since the law changed.

Insurance Fraud

Our attorneys have handled several different insurance fraud-related cases and recovered considerable sums for our clients. In the not-too-distant past, insurance companies knowingly sold products that in varying ways were intended to mislead or defraud consumers. From vanishing premiums to phantom policies, the insurance industry has gotten itself in trouble and, consequently, involved in litigation over their practices. We are always interested in hearing from consumers that have an issue with their insurance coverage and we offer a free consultation for anyone with a current issue.