Photo of Caleb Hunt

Caleb Hunt

Caleb’s litigation experience focuses on consumer products, industrial machinery, and commercial disputes. With a particular focus on the manufacturing and transportation industries, he routinely works with sophisticated, multinational corporations and is an integral part of client service teams for major, well-known brands. Caleb tends to be brought in after a major crisis or disaster: his cases usually involve allegations of wrongful death, catastrophic personal injuries, or industrial fires. He regularly defends both consumer and industrial products, including ammunition, industrial machines and tools, trucks and other vehicles, and tires.

Caleb’s practice depends on methodical legal analysis and thorough fact investigation to build clients’ cases from the ground up. His experience includes second chairing a bench trial with a verdict in the client's favor, as well as several significant dispositive motion wins. Licensed in four states (Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa), Caleb has a truly multi-jurisdictional practice, and he has handled cases nationwide. In addition to the states where he is licensed, he has also litigated in Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Kansas, and Texas.

Before joining the firm, Caleb served more than a decade in the U.S. Army as a mechanic and helicopter crewmember. His background provides a solid mechanical competency, and he readily grasps how complex machinery and products operate.

Caleb completed two combat deployments, where he was responsible for anticipating contingencies and maintaining high-stakes, high-dollar technical precision levels under pressured circumstances. The work required discipline, organization, a proactive mindset, and excellent communication—all of which remain hallmarks of Caleb’s legal services. He’s known today as a highly dependable team member who is continually looking for ways to improve.

Follow:Read more about Caleb HuntCaleb's Linkedin Profile

Introduction

On October 6, 2025, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Syngenta Crop, LLC v. Nemeth, passing on an opportunity to clarify its prior decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern and address whether Pennsylvania’s “consent to jurisdiction” statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The result: for now, out-of-state corporations registered to do business in Pennsylvania remain subject to general personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth, regardless of the extent of their in-state operations.

In recent years, the market for eco-friendly products has surged, driven by increasing consumer demand for sustainable and environmentally responsible options. However, this trend has also led to a rise in greenwashing claims, where companies are accused of making misleading or unsubstantiated environmental claims about their products. As American businesses strive to capitalize on the green movement, they must navigate the complexities of complying with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides to avoid potential liability risks.

If you have shopped online lately, odds are you saw products proudly advertising themselves as “Made in the USA.” Maybe it was a flag, a pair of boots, or a kitchen gadget. But how often is that label actually true? According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not often enough. And this summer, the FTC delivered a not-so-subtle message to major players in American e-commerce, raising questions about the appropriate roles and responsibilities of platforms versus individual sellers.

The Kansas Supreme Court recently delivered another strong endorsement of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), further solidifying its role as a shield for lawful commerce in the firearms industry. In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al., the Court held that the PLCAA bars product liability and negligence claims against manufacturers and sellers when an injury results from a criminal misuse—even if the shooting was in some respects accidental.1

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has long been a cornerstone of protection for firearms manufacturers and sellers, shielding them from liability when their products are misused in crimes. But recent litigation, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.,1 shows how litigants continue to test the boundaries of this federal law. While the ruling ultimately upheld the PLCAA’s protections, the case is a reminder of the ongoing scrutiny the law faces—and why it remains essential for the firearms industry.

Not everything stamped “privileged” is safe from prying eyes. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that interview notes compiled by a sorority’s leadership after a tragic incident were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. This decision serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers and their clients on how privilege works—and when it does not. See King v. Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority et al., 2025 PA Super 8, No. 55 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super 2025).

Wooden gavel and American dollars
Record-breaking verdict

The number of cases involving so-called “nuclear verdicts” — that is, verdicts with awards of $10 million or more — have risen sharply, and many of those cases concern product liability claims. For large corporations, such verdicts can be damaging, both from a financial and reputational standpoint, but rarely do they significantly impact operations beyond the quarter or year in which they are booked. For middle-market and smaller corporations, however, product liability litigation can be enterprise-threatening; therefore, it is vital for smaller corporations — especially those with limited in-house legal resources — to understand the claims most often brought in product liability litigation, how to triage inbound lawsuits, and when to call on outside legal advice to resolve disputes.

In a 4-3 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion that significantly narrowed Iowa’s new statutory asbestos defense – holding the defense only protects asbestos product defendants who did not manufacture or sell the asbestos in question. See Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 19-1852, 2022 WL 2182351 (Iowa June 17, 2022). This statutory asbestos defense was part of Iowa’s 2017 tort reform.

Litigants recently tested the limits of liability waivers under Iowa law. In a 6-1 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court joined the bulk of other jurisdictions and held a contractual liability waiver was not enforceable “to the extent it purports to eliminate liability for the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct” a plaintiff alleges. Lukken v. Fleischer, 962 N.W.2d 71, 82 (Iowa 2021).

On September 5, 2018, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District of Illinois introduced heightened standards for plaintiffs to establish duty and causation in asbestos litigation through its reversal of a McLean County trial court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. McKinney v. Hobart Bros. Co., 2018 IL App (4th) 170333, appeal denied, 116 N.E.3d 948 (Ill. 2019). In McKinney, the plaintiff sued Defendant Hobart Brothers Company (“Hobart”) alleging his eight-month workplace exposure to Hobart’s asbestos-containing welding rods in 1962 and 1963 caused his mesothelioma. The welding rods at issue allegedly contained asbestos fibers that were encapsulated. The plaintiff also alleged exposure to asbestos-containing automotive products that occurred during the course of his forty-year mechanic career. In reversing the trial judgment, the McKinney Court addressed three issues of expert testimony admissibility under Rule 213 and ultimately tightened the reins on exposure claims involving encapsulated asbestos fibers by requiring industry knowledge of harm for the manufacturer’s product at issue before imposing a duty and ushering in the “substantial factor” test for causation.