Defense Litigation Insider Helping you navigate a clear path through complex litigation.

Category Archives: Asbestos Litigation

Subscribe to Asbestos Litigation RSS Feed

Manufacturers Benefit from Georgia Supreme Court Ruling on Take-Home Exposure

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

The Georgia Supreme Court has weighed-in on the issue of manufacturers’ liability for take-home exposure cases. In the opinion recently issued in CertainTeed Corporation v. Fletcher, the Court drew an unexpected distinction between a manufacturer’s duty to issue warnings and its responsibility to keep harmful products out of the stream of commerce. Justice Carol Hunstein,… Continue Reading

Recent Fifth Circuit Ruling a Relief to United States Government Equipment Suppliers

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

It is no secret that, in many instances, injured tort plaintiffs would prefer to file their cases in state court as opposed to federal court. One of the many reasons for this preference is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place express limits on the amount of discovery available to parties.  Further, the Federal Rules… Continue Reading

Another Blow to “Every Exposure” in Asbestos Litigation

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Louisiana Courts, Toxic Tort

Causation opinions from plaintiff’s experts in asbestos exposure cases have undergone a puzzling evolution as they continue to face successful challenges. From “every exposure” to “every exposure above background” and “every significant exposure,” each iteration has attempted to make the same end run around the plaintiff’s burden of proof by stating that all exposures in… Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Recognizes a Duty of Care to “Take-Home” Plaintiffs

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

Last month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on two coordinated “take-home” asbestos exposure cases, in which it held that employers using asbestos in the workplace have a duty of care to protect an employees’ household members from exposure to asbestos through off-site contact with employees who carry asbestos fibers on their work clothing and/or… Continue Reading

Another Smoking Lung Cancer Asbestos Claim Gets Burned in Baltimore

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Maryland Courts

Five plaintiffs in a smoking lung cancer case in a Baltimore City, Maryland case captioned James Harrell, et al v. ACandS, INC., et al, Consol. Case No. 24X16000053 saw their claims go up in smoke on November 15, 2016 when the Court granted certain Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Assumption of… Continue Reading

Daimler Ruling’s Crucial Role in Recent Delaware Court Decision

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends

Since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman in 2014, general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant has become a hot topic. See 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014). In most jurisdictions, it is no longer sufficient for a plaintiff to establish a corporate defendant was registered to do business in the jurisdiction… Continue Reading

The Trouble with Dying Declaration Affidavits in Asbestos Litigation: a Case Study

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Products Liability

In asbestos litigation, often times a plaintiff’s sole evidence of product identification takes the form of an affidavit created shortly before the claimant passes away.  Typically called a “dying-declaration” affidavit, the document preserves the plaintiff’s written testimony for trial, thereby preserving his cause of action against the individuals and entities he believes were responsible for… Continue Reading

Johnson & Johnson Found Liable in Latest Talc Product Trial

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Talc Litigation

For the third time this year, a St. Louis, Missouri jury found Johnson & Johnson liable in a case where plaintiff alleged that her ovarian cancer was caused by her use of talcum powder products. At trial, Deborah Giannecchini, a 62 year-old California woman, claimed that her decades-long use of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder… Continue Reading

Why a Wisconsin Judge Rejected an Asbestos Case as “Disingenuous”

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Toxic Tort

A district court judge for the Western District of Wisconsin has issued a defense-verdict following a three-day bench trial, during which Plaintiff argued that his father’s work with Kaylo pipe insulation caused his death from mesothelioma. In his opinion in Gary Suoja, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Oswald Suoja v. Owens-Illinois,… Continue Reading

New Trend Emerging From Pending California Take-Home Exposure Decision?

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

California has become a hub for asbestos litigation.  Its plaintiff-friendly law and juries have attracted plaintiffs from both California and across the country.  A case currently pending in the Supreme Court of California concerning whether a duty is owed to a plaintiff who alleges “take-home” asbestos exposure could have a major impact on whether California… Continue Reading

Rhode Island Court Upholds Daimler to Dismiss Claims Against Foreign Corporation for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Complex Torts, Litigation Trends, Rhode Island Courts

On October 13, 2016, Presiding Justice Alice B. Gibney of the Rhode Island Superior Court ruled on Defendant Dana Companies, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pending in the case of Harold Wayne Murray and Janice M. Murray v. 3M Company, et al., granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss upon finding that… Continue Reading

Causation and Bare Metal Defenses Prove Effective as Asbestos Liability Shield

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

A recent ruling in an asbestos-related case provides an important lesson for defendants in framing their defenses. In Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems, et.al. (Report and Recommendation, C.A. No. 14-406-GMS-SRF (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2015)), a mesothelioma case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware which involves allegations of asbestos… Continue Reading

U.S. Court of Appeals Reverses Summary Judgment in Lung Cancer Asbestos Case

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

On September 13, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partially reinstated a plaintiff’s claims that his decedent developed lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure that he allegedly experienced from work in the vicinity of switchgear components manufactured by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a predecessor to CBS Corporation.  In re:… Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Experts Barred from Offering “Any Exposure” Theory in Asbestos Lung Cancer Case

Posted in Asbestos Litigation

IL court rejects de minimis exposure to asbestos as ‘substantial contributing factor’ An Illinois federal judge recently barred expert testimony espousing the “Any Exposure” theory, which is also commonly referred to as the “Each and Every Exposure” theory and the “Single Fiber” theory. In general, the “Any Exposure” theory is a causation theory that postulates… Continue Reading

Will “Unprecedented” Garlock Asbestos Bankruptcy Deal Be a Game Changer?

Posted in All Practice Areas, Asbestos Litigation, Products Liability

The Garlock asbestos bankruptcy has generated significant interest from attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants as well as from companies and insurers involved in asbestos litigation.  Although the impact on litigation throughout the country has been uneven, courts seem to be more willing to take a proactive role in ensuring that transparency is provided in disclosing… Continue Reading

Not Satisfied with its 5th Place Finish in the American Tort Reform Foundation Judicial Hellholes® Listing, Illinois Makes A Push For Number One

Posted in All Practice Areas, Asbestos Litigation, Toxic Tort

Ben Franklin famously warned that “you may delay, but time will not, and lost time is never found again.” These words of wisdom appear to be lost on the Illinois state legislature, which recently abolished the ten-year statute of repose for personal injury claims related to asbestos exposure under 735 ILCS 5/13-214. Far from an… Continue Reading

Calif. Supreme Court Takes On ‘Take-Home’ Asbestos

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Premises Liability

Specifically, the court granted preferential review of the issue:   “If an employer’s business involves either the use or the manufacture of asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care to members of an employee’s household who could be affected by asbestos brought home on the employee’s clothing?”   As background, recent California… Continue Reading

Delaware Supreme Court Tosses $2.8 Million Verdict in Galliher Asbestos Trial

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Delaware Courts, Products Liability

Overview: In an opinion written by Justice Henry DuPont Ridgely, a unanimous panel of the Delaware Supreme Court recently threw out a $2.8 million verdict in the case of Michael Galliher v. R.T. Vanderbilt.  Defense Litigation Insider previously covered the verdict and Trial Court’s post trial opinion.  Here, R.T. Vanderbilt (“Vanderbilt”) appealed the verdict claiming… Continue Reading

Significant Asbestos “Take-Home Exposure” Opinion

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Premises Liability, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

-Persuasive precedent likely as PA judge holds employer/premises owner does not owe duty to warn  On August 28, 2014, the Honorable Judge Eduardo C. Robreno, in the Multi-District Litigation for asbestos in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued a significant opinion in which he held that an employer and/or premises… Continue Reading

Will House Bill 4123 Turn Massachusetts Into a Filing Haven for Plaintiffs?

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Environmental Litigation, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

  House Bill 4123 makes two changes to Massachusetts Superior Court procedure, both of which favor plaintiffs.  The first, addressed by Section 1 of the bill, allows plaintiffs’ attorneys to request a specific monetary amount of damages at trial.  The second, addressed by Section 2 of the bill, allows attorneys to conduct voir dire.  … Continue Reading

Latest Fallout in Garlock Highlights Importance of Thorough Discovery of Bankruptcy Claims

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

Note: For more MG&M analysis on Garlock, please see previous post by William Larson and Brian Gross.   The ramifications of the Garlock asbestos bankruptcy are just beginning to be felt across the country.  As new developments continue to play out, it is important to note that in each of the 15 cases in which… Continue Reading

Maryland Court Continues Trend, Holding There Is No Duty To Warn For Household Exposure

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Maryland Courts, Toxic Tort

The Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Georgia-Pacific Corp. was not liable for illness involving a woman who was exposed to asbestos while doing her father’s laundry in the 1960s. The Insurance Journal reported on the recent decision: The Court of Appeals ruled that Georgia-Pacific Corp. was not obligated to warn relatives of the… Continue Reading

North Carolina Bankruptcy Court Limits Garlock’s Asbestos Liabilities and Ford Wants the Court Records Unsealed

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

Background: Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (“Garlock” or “Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2010.  Garlock had been an active asbestos defendant for its asbestos-containing precut gaskets, sheet gasket material, and packing materials.  In January, after extensive discovery and a trial held under seal, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (pdf download) in… Continue Reading