Max Kelln

Max Kelln is an environmental attorney and co-leader of Faegre Drinker’s environment and energy group, which advises clients nationwide on regulatory compliance, litigation and environmental policy. He represents municipalities, utility companies, manufacturers and developers across the country as they navigate complex environmental requirements and resolve high-stakes disputes related to infrastructure, emerging contaminants and legacy contamination. He is recognized in Chambers USA for environmental law in Indiana and has been central to the growth of the firm’s nationally ranked environment and energy practice.

View the full bio for Max Kelln at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Max Kelln:


Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims

Share

As toxic tort claims alleging chronic illness from alleged chemical exposure continue to rise nationwide, the recent Kansas federal court decision in Jefferies v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., 2026 WL 958172, (April 9, 2026), highlights the power of statutes of repose, which can bar latent disease claims, even when the injury is discovered decades after exposure.

Case Background

In Jefferies, plaintiffs living near the defendant’s chemical manufacturing facility alleged that years of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions caused cancer and miscarriages, some dating back decades. However, the Kansas statute of repose imposes a strict 10-year cutoff: No claim may proceed for exposures more than 10 years before suit, regardless of when the injury came to light. Seizing on this statute, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. Agreeing with the defendants, the court rejected arguments that the discovery rule, ongoing emissions, and a continuing duty to warn tolled the statute of repose, emphasizing that the statute is a “general grant of immunity” that abolishes claims arising outside its window.

Continue reading “Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims”