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

Tag Archives: asbestos litigation

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

Discovery Costs: How Companies Can Increase Efficiency and Save Money in the Process

Posted in All Practice Areas, Products Liability, Professional Liability, Toxic Tort

Despite efforts to increase efficiency and save money, most businesses set aside substantial budgets for litigation costs. With the ever-changing landscape of litigation, discovery is usually one of the most expensive line-items. In fact, Inside Counsel points out a Gartner forecast showing, “revenue in the enterprise e-discovery software market will grow from $1.8 billion in 2014 to… 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

Congresswoman’s Asbestos Lawsuit Emblematic of an Increasing Trend of Allegedly Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer Cases

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends

Companies and insurers continue to experience an increase in the number of lawsuits they face, which involve Plaintiffs who allege that their lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure, despite the fact that many of these Plaintiffs were longtime smokers.  The trend, which has emerged over several years, has gained nationwide prominence as highlighted by… Continue Reading

Getting the Facts: House Considers the “Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act” of 2013

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends, Toxic Tort

The House of Representatives subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law is currently considering the “Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) Act.”   The bipartisan legislation, introduced by Representatives Blake Farenthold (R-TX) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), aims to bring transparency to federal asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Bill H.R. 982 would require federal asbestos bankruptcy trusts to file quarterly… Continue Reading

Free and Clear: Dissolved Delaware Corporation Deemed Not Liable for Asbestos-Related Liabilities More than 10 Years After Dissolution

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Delaware Courts

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently took a rare foray into the world of asbestos litigation after it was asked to appoint a receiver to distribute the remaining reserves from casualty insurance policies issued to Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. (“Krafft-Murphy”) to plaintiffs who allege injury from asbestos-containing products used by Krafft-Murphy.  The Chancery Court, in an… Continue Reading

Shed a Little Light: Congressional Hearing on Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts Promises Much-Needed Transparency

Posted in Asbestos Litigation

  Recently, the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, held a hearing on an important new bill aimed at furthering transparency in asbestos bankruptcy trusts.  Proponents of the controversial new bill, entitled H.R. 4369, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) Act of 2012,” say that it would… Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Says Equipment Manufacturers Not Liable For Injuries Caused By Asbestos-Containing Replacement Parts

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, California Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability

Co-authored by Brian Gross  After years of inconsistent rulings in the trial and appellate courts, the California Supreme Court recently decided the issue of whether plaintiffs in asbestos litigation may pursue claims against equipment manufacturers for injuries caused by asbestos-containing replacement component parts they neither manufactured nor supplied. For the reasons below, the Court expressly rejected this theory of liability and affirmed judgment in… Continue Reading

Congress Taking a Closer Look into Alleged “Double-Dipping” by Asbestos Claimants

Posted in Asbestos Litigation

Co-authored by Brian Gross Chances are, if you watch television, you’ve seen them – commercials in which attorneys promise financial compensation for those who have been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.  In their efforts to fulfill these promises, plaintiffs’ attorneys can pursue claims not only against solvent companies through the court system, but can also pursue… Continue Reading

Delaware Asbestos Judge Continues Trend of Streamlining Docket

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Litigation Trends

Much like Judge Robreno, currently in charge of the Federal MDL asbestos docket in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Ableman of the Delaware Superior Court has made increasing the efficiency of the Delaware asbestos docket a goal since being put in charge of asbestos litigation in Delaware in May of 2010.  One of the… Continue Reading

Tort Reform Law And The Controversial “Losers Pay” Provision; A Game Changer For Asbestos Litigation?

Posted in Asbestos Litigation, Toxic Tort

Co-authored by Brian Gross The Texas legislature recently enacted a major tort reform law which would make the losing party pay the opposing party’s “costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.”  In its true form, this rule, also known as the “English Rule,” requires that a losing party in litigation pay the fees and the costs… Continue Reading