Scott is a litigation attorney whose practice focuses on defending clients in asbestos personal injury cases, products liability matters, and other complex litigation. Over the past 20 years, Scott has defended dozens of clients in asbestos cases and tried several asbestos cases in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He has also served as part of a team involved in developing litigation strategies for clients involved in thousands of asbestos cases pending in Baltimore City. As a function of his work defending clients in asbestos cases, Scott also has substantial experience examining a wide variety of expert witnesses at deposition and trial. Beyond asbestos cases, Scott has defended companies in other types of products liability cases involving benzene products, lead paint, mold, blasting explosives, fireplace inserts, and automatic doors.
Outside of products liability litigation, Scott has experience defending companies in cases involving construction defects, premises liability, insurance coverage, commercial paper, property damage, and contract disputes.
Experience
+
Representative Matters
Defended a supplier and installer of insulation materials at trial in four different asbestos cases in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City between 2011 and 2017
Obtained summary judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and helped defend a successful appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in a series of asbestos cases involving asbestos exposures occurring in local Baltimore shipyards
Defended a client in arbitration accused of violating non-compete provisions of his employment contract and litigated a counterclaim for failure to properly compensate for commissions earned during employment
Defended a construction company at trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in a case involving damages to an adjacent property during construction of an underground parking garage
Litigated an insurance coverage dispute at trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for damages to a company's products after failure of a roofing system at a warehouse
Insights
+
Thought Leadership
1998
Dynamic Student Services v. State System of Education: "Are Control and Possession of Public Records Necessary to Force Disclosure Under the Right to Know Act?"
Dynamic Student Services v. State System of Education: "Are Control and Possession of Public Records Necessary to Force Disclosure Under the Right to Know Act?"
1998
Printz v. United States: "If Congress Cannot Force State Legislatures to Implement Federal Policy, Why Should it be Able to Force State Executives?"
Printz v. United States: "If Congress Cannot Force State Legislatures to Implement Federal Policy, Why Should it be Able to Force State Executives?"
Recent News
July 07, 2016
BTI Consulting Names Venable a Top 10 Firm for Client Relationships in the Pharmaceutical Industry