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.

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.