Partner

Jason W. Rubin, Esq.

p. 215.735.3994  |  f. 215.735.1133

Bar Admissions

Pennsylvania
New Jersey
New York
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Memberships

Member of the Defense Research Institute
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
Claims and Litigation Management Alliance

Education

Cornell University, B.S.
University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D.

Overview

Managing Partner, Jason Rubin has been representing our clients in civil litigation lawsuits since 1996.

Prior to his career at Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, he clerked for the Honorable G. Craig Lord in the Civil Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia.

Mr. Rubin currently concentrates his practice in products liability and toxic torts and has managed the firm’s well-regarded mass tort department since 1997. As National Counsel for a multinational company’s asbestos litigation, Mr. Rubin manages thousands of asbestos claims in more than three dozen states. He coordinates depositions, trials, expert selection, and discovery on a national basis. He also negotiates national settlement and dismissals packages and has negotiated packages in Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, including several multi-jurisdictional packages.

Mr. Rubin represents several clients in their toxic tort matters filed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York and has tried several cases to verdict. In the last few years he obtained defense verdicts in Philadelphia asbestos and benzene suits.

A certified arbitrator for the 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rubin has significant arbitration experience and has successfully argued before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. His success has been recognized by Thomson Reuters which designates him a Super Lawyer in products liability.

Jason lives in Philadelphia with his wife and two daughters. An active member of The Friends of Cianfrani Park, he volunteers his time for neighborhood initiatives.  He is an avid runner and captain of the GMR running team which participates in the Annual Philadelphia Bar Association 5K Run.

Representative Matters

Jason Rubin Obtains Nonsuit in Favor of Automotive Retailer in Philadelphia Benzene Claim on the 7th Day of Trial

» Read Story

Jason Rubin Wins Asbestos Colon Cancer Wrongful Death Trial in Philadelphia

» Read Story

Philadelphia Court Grants Forklift Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment

» Read Story

Appellate victory in Pennsylvania Superior Court affirming the Trial Court decision to grant Preliminary Objections under the doctrine of lis pendens dismissing a second Complaint filed in a more favorable jurisdiction when first Complaint was still pending in another jurisdiction.

Summary judgment granted to a building products supplier in a toxic tort action in Philadelphia. Plaintiff presented evidence suggesting the building products may have contained asbestos, but we asserted there was insufficient evidence the building products contained asbestos and argued it was likely the decedent’s exposures to asbestos were associated with his career as a pipefitter.

Summary judgment granted to an electrical product manufacturer defendant in a toxic tort case in Philadelphia County. During Plaintiff’s deposition, the defendant was directly identified among several defendants that allegedly manufactured asbestos-containing products the plaintiff worked with during his career as an electrician. We successfully argued that any exposure the plaintiff may have had to asbestos released from defendant’s product was minimal and failed to satisfy the Pennsylvania standard for causation.

Summary judgment granted in Philadelphia asbestos claims on behalf of a truck brake manufacturer. The Plaintiff, a mechanic, testified he was exposed to asbestos from work involving brakes manufactured by several defendants including brakes manufactured by our client. We established the plaintiff was unable to recall virtually anything about our client’s product or the alleged exposure, including the shape or design of the brake or the length, duration, or frequency of his alleged exposure.  In addition, we also established the plaintiff was aware of the hazards of asbestos before he ever encountered our client’s brake product, that he suspected the brake may have contained asbestos before working with it, and that he took precautions when working with the brake to minimize his exposure.