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

Tag Archives: Litigation

Massachusetts Superior Court Invalidates Forum Selection Clause and Dismisses Employer’s Action To Enforce a Noncompetition Agreement

Posted in California Courts, Commercial Litigation, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Massachusetts Courts

  Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez Superior Court of Massachusetts (Suffolk, Business Litigation Session) Docket No. 1684-CV-03911-BLS-2   The Business Litigation Session of the Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts invalidated a contractual forum selection clause and dismissed an employer’s action to enforce a noncompetition agreement signed by a former employee, because the employer forced a… Continue Reading

The Delaware LLC is Not a Corporation and Should Be Subject to a Different Veil Piercing Analysis

Posted in Corporate Litigation, Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends

“Veil piercing” is an equitable remedy that allows a plaintiff with a claim against an entity to obtain relief from the entity’s owners, in spite of laws providing for limited liability.  When the owners provide personal guarantees or otherwise contract around liability protections, or when the owners are sued in their own right based on… 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

Delaware Supreme Court Repudiates LLC’s Fraudulent Inducement Defense in Summary Advancement Proceeding

Posted in Delaware Courts, Employment Litigation, Litigation Trends, Uncategorized

The Delaware Supreme Court recently held that the plain language of an employment agreement and an LLC agreement prevented an LLC from interjecting a fraudulent inducement defense into a summary proceeding for the advancement of litigation expenses under Section 18-108 of the Delaware LLC Act. Trascent Mgmt. Consulting, LLC v. Bouri, No. 126, 2016 (Del…. 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

D.C. Court of Appeals Overturns Frye and Adopts Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 702

Posted in Complex Torts, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently adopted the standards found in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (“Rule 702”), regarding the admissibility of testimony by expert witnesses, thereby replacing the Frye (“Frye”) test.  See Motorola Inc., et al. v. Michael Patrick Murray, et al., 2016 WL 6134870 (October 20, 2016)(“Motorola”). Washington D.C. is now… 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

Court Rules Monsanto Roundup Cases to Stay in Delaware

Posted in Delaware Courts, Litigation Trends, Products Liability, Toxic Tort

Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Delaware Superior Court recently denied defendant Monsanto Company’s motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens (“FNC”) in Barrera v. Monsanto Company.  This ruling, along with a similar ruling issued by Judge Andrea L. Rocanelli one day prior in Gilchrist v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, reaffirms and provides new… 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

LA Supreme Court Ruling a Sweet One for Insurer

Posted in Complex Torts, Employment Litigation

Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Arceneaux et al. v. Amstar Corp. et. al, 2015-0588 (La. 9/7/16, 1) decided that, in long latency disease cases, an insurer’s payments of defense costs may be prorated when the insurer’s occurrence-based policy was effective only during part of the plaintiffs’ exposure years. Plaintiffs in Arceneaux alleged hearing loss… Continue Reading

Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Birth Control Patch Case

Posted in Massachusetts Courts, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices

On September 21, 2016, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the grant of summary judgment to Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”), the manufacturer of the Ortho-Evra birth control patch at issue in the case of Niedner v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. 15-P-1272, 2016 WL 5106479 (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 21, 2016).  In so doing, the Appeals Court… Continue Reading

Massachusetts Appeals Court Overturns Jury’s Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Case

Posted in Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices, Products Liability

On September 13, 2016, the Massachusetts Appeals Court decided Albright v. Boston Scientific Corporation by vacating a jury’s verdict in favor of Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) and remanding the matter to the Superior Court for retrial. No. 15-P-633, 2016 WL 4736686 (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 13, 2016). By way of background, the Plaintiff, Diane Albright,… Continue Reading