Photo of Brian Gross

Brian Gross has an exceptional track record of finding client-oriented solutions to complex litigation issues. Drawing on two decades of courtroom experience, he handles a broad spectrum of litigation, including products liability, food and beverage liability claims, asbestos and other toxic tort litigation, pharmaceutical and medical device claims, environmental litigation, as well as trucking claims, general liability issues, and business disputes for clients across the United States. Whether he is trying an individual case or managing national litigation, clients trust Brian to keep their best interests firmly in his sights.

Lady JusticeOn 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 the court lacked sufficient minimum contacts to exercise personal jurisdiction – either general or specific – over the defendant. With this ruling, Rhode Island joins a growing list of jurisdictions that have applied the United States Supreme Court’s standard passed down in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

The Murray case was filed in Providence Superior Court, and involves a Tennessee resident alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos through his work with and around numerous defendants’ products over the course of his lifetime, predominantly at locations in Tennessee and Virginia. The complaint filed in Murray named hundreds of defendants who allegedly manufactured, sold, or supplied asbestos or asbestos-containing products to which Mr. Murray was allegedly exposed, including Dana Companies, LLC (“Dana”). Dana subsequently moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that a Rhode Island court’s exercise of jurisdiction, either specific or general, would violate its due process rights pursuant to the United State Constitution as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman and its progeny.

Specifically, Dana asserted that as the plaintiff’s claims arose from alleged conduct that occurred entirely outside of Rhode Island with consequences transpiring outside of the State, the court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was clearly improper. During his deposition taken near his home in Johnson City, Tennessee, Mr. Murray confirmed that he’d never lived in, worked in, received treatment in, or visited the State of Rhode Island. Absent a nexus between the plaintiff, the forum, and the litigation to permit the court’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, the court’s review of Dana’s motion to dismiss turned on the question of whether there was a basis to exert general jurisdiction over the defendant.

The court’s general jurisdiction analysis began by citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown for the proposition that a court may reasonably exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation where the corporation’s affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially “at home” in the forum state. 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011); Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 317 (1945)).Upholding Daimler’s elaboration of this “at home” standard, the court reasoned that “with very limited exceptions, a defendant can customarily be subject to general jurisdiction in the state of its incorporation and the state of its principal place of business.” Going further, the court specified that evidence of a corporation’s continuous and systematic contact with a jurisdiction was relevant only to the determination of specific jurisdiction, and was not the


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

Occupational Hearing Loss (OHL) is one of the most prevalent work-related illnesses in the United States with 22 million workers exposed to hazardous noise each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

With approximately $242 million spent annually on workers’ compensation claims for disabilities arising from hearing loss, this number is set to increase in light of a new favorable holding for Louisiana employers with industrial workplace settings.
hearingThe Louisiana Supreme Court held in Arrant et al v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc. et al that defendant Graphic Packaging, which owns and operates a paper mill, box plant, and carton plant in West Monroe, Louisiana, is immune from suits in tort brought by its employees for noise-induced hearing loss injuries sustained from working around industrial machinery. The Supreme Court held that these injuries fell within the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”) definitions of a covered “personal injury by accident” or an “occupational disease.”

“Arrant is the symbolic shot heard round the world in Louisiana when it comes to noise induced hearing loss suits.”

The Court heard testimony from expert audiologists that when high levels of energy enter the cochlea of the ear “it damages and destroys that row of hair cells in that particular part of the ear.” There is an “immediate injury to the inner ear” though the effect only becomes gradually perceptible over time and only with repeated or continuous exposures to high levels of noise. As such, the Court held that traumatic injury to the inner ear qualified as a personal injury by accident under the LWCA.

The Court also found that “hazardous levels of industrial noise . . . was a condition very characteristic of and peculiar to the particular employment of working in a paper mill or box plant” and as such was an occupational disease under the LWCA.

Caution-Hearing-Protection-RequiredThe legal effect of Arrant is that suits against an employer for noise induced hearing loss injuries are now within the exclusive remedy provision of the LWCA. The practical effect of Arrant is that noise-induced hearing loss suits against employers are coming to an end. While technically the LWCA provides an exception for intentional acts, this is a difficult burden to meet. Were plaintiffs to amend their petition to assert an intentional tort against their employers, they would have to prove that the employers either desired that their employees sustain noise-induced hearing loss, or were substantially certain that such injuries were going to occur from their work around noise producing machinery inside their facilities.

Simply, Arrant is the symbolic ‘shot heard round the world’ in Louisiana when it comes to noise induced hearing loss suits.
Continue Reading Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Claims Against Employers Fall On Deaf Ears

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 Garlock was allowed to conduct additional discovery, the bankruptcy court found evidence that alternative exposures to asbestos were withheld.  This groundbreaking case has shed light on extremely valuable areas of discovery previously not pursued in a thorough enough manner.

The case has set in motion a new trend triggering discovery requests for all sources of exposure outlined in prior bankruptcy trust claims. Today, many different entities are seeking additional information regarding any potential withholding of alternative exposure evidence.

For example, Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law 360, reports that the bankruptcy court recently granted Ford Motor Company’s request to file a motion in federal district court seeking sealed evidence relative to other potentially withheld bankruptcy claims.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ bar has pushed back on Garlock, arguing in a recent motion that Garlock knew of alternative exposures while hiding the evidence.  As a result, the Plaintiffs’ committee in the bankruptcy case has asked that the proceedings relating to the Garlock bankruptcy estimation be reopened, claiming that “Garlock has committed a fraud upon the court”—a charge Garlock attorneys argue is baseless.

In Los Angeles, California, Judge Emilie Elias, who has been appointed as the Coordination Trial Judge for all asbestos lawsuits pending in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, has set a hearing on disclosure requirements for bankruptcy trust submissions.  The plaintiffs’ bar has vigorously opposed many of the disclosure requirements, arguing they may file claims simply as “placeholders” to avoid the statute of limitations and such claims should not be discoverable under the attorney work product privilege.

Regardless of future rulings on the case, the proceedings highlight the need to conduct thorough investigation and discovery regarding all sources of exposure.

As Heather Isringhausen Gvillo noted in Legal Newsline “the ruling should do everything from assisting defense attorneys seeking access to asbestos trust claim submissions as well as fueling both jurisdictional and national efforts to require bankruptcy trust transparency through case management orders or even federal laws.”

The lesson learned in Garlock is that companies and insurers involved in asbestos litigation, as well as their attorneys, must insist upon the release of all discoverable bankruptcy trust claims information.  This will sometimes require vigilance and persistence since some plaintiffs’ firms are reluctant or unwilling to provide complete disclosure regarding these sources of exposure.

As always, diligent attention to discovery procedures is essential.

# # #Continue Reading Latest Fallout in Garlock Highlights Importance of Thorough Discovery of Bankruptcy Claims

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 dangers of asbestos in the 1960s.
  • The hazard was not sufficiently known until federal regulations were issued in 1972 by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  • The court’s ruling overturns a $5 million verdict.
  • Jocelyn Farrar had been exposed while doing laundry in the late 1960s and fell ill decades later.

In the decision, available on the website of the Maryland high court (pdf download), the Court explained that it rejected liability because:

  • There was no duty to warn persons such as Ms. Farrar, who was a “bystander of a bystander,” a person who never used the product and never directly came into contact with it.
  • The duty extends to those whom the supplier should expect to use the product or to third persons whom the supplier should expect to be endangered by its use.
  • Even if the danger was foreseeable, prior to 1972 OSHA regulations, it would have been difficult for the company to have provided a warning that could have avoided the danger.

The Maryland decision continues the recent trend in rejecting a duty in cases involving secondary exposure.  In 2012, California followed Ohio and joined the growing list of states which reject the defendant’s duty to an employee’s family member in “take home asbestos” cases. In an article featured in the DRI‘s Newsletter and published on May 9, 2014, co-authors Carter E. Strang and Karen E. Ross also noted the jurisdictions which have rejected secondary exposure claims.  Since their publication, California and Maryland have joined approximately nine other states in rejecting a duty in secondary exposure cases.  Another California court recently came to the same conclusion as the earlier California case in an unreported decision.

However, as Strang and Ross noted in their January 16, 2014 DRI article (pdf download), it is unclear how these cases will play out at the trial level, as a verdict of over $27 million was recently entered in California in a case involving take-home asbestos exposure.

As the National Association of Manufacturers noted, the Maryland Court of Appeals found:

“that there was skimpy knowledge at the time of the danger to household members from asbestos dust brought into the home, and that the company was unable to give warnings directly to such plaintiffs and the warnings would not have had any practical effect. “

Conclusion

Courts nationwide are increasingly rejecting the claims by plaintiffs and their attorneys that seek to impose duties far removed from the allegedly wrongful act.  Defense attorneys can and should seek to impose reasonable limits on the issue of duty to those instances in which harm is reasonably foreseeable to the alleged tortfeasor.  Raising appropriate
Continue Reading Maryland Court Continues Trend, Holding There Is No Duty To Warn For Household Exposure

Court Ruling

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 which it estimated Garlock’s liability for present and future mesothelioma claims.  The Court adopted the Debtors’ estimate of $125 million despite the $1-$1.3 billion estimate of the representatives of current and future claimants (“Claimants”).

Estimation Analysis: In the past, bankruptcy courts have taken a variety of approaches to estimating liability for present and future claims, which has led to billions of dollars being set aside for claimants in asbestos bankruptcy trusts.  Here, Debtors requested that the Court follow a “legal liability” approach, in which the merits of claims are considered and an econometric analysis is conducted to determine the likelihood of recovery.  Meanwhile, Claimants requested that the Court follow a “settlement approach” based on extrapolating data from Garlock’s past settlements in the tort system.

Before making a determination, Judge George R. Hodges allowed Garlock to conduct additional discovery in 15 cases that it settled or took to trial.  Plaintiffs in these cases were represented by 5 major asbestos plaintiff firms.  In every case, Garlock found that evidence of alternative exposure was withheld.  The Court found on average pre-settlement disclosure of exposure to 2 bankrupt entities’ products, but after settlement those same plaintiffs made claims to an average of 19 bankruptcy trusts.  The Court found several occasions when lawyers misrepresented a plaintiff’s exposure history to judges and juries only to later file claims against trusts for products to which they had previously denied exposure.  Garlock has filed civil lawsuits against several plaintiff firms based on allegations of fraud.  For more details on the allegations and related litigation see the Court’s opinion and accounts from NPR, Forbes, and BusinessWeek.

While the Court recognized a comfort in relying on settlement history to estimate liability, it found in this case a “divorce” from that process was necessary and it adopted the Debtors’ approach and estimate.  The Court determined that the Claimants’ approach did not adequately account for cases in which exposure evidence was withheld and it did not take into consideration the cost of litigation as a driving factor in settlements.  The Court concluded that Garlock’s products were made of low potency chrysotile asbestos and generally Claimants had also been exposed to more potent amphibole asbestos from other manufacturers’ products.  Based on this alternative exposure and the fact that some claimants had never been exposed to asbestos from a Garlock product, the Court concluded Garlock should be responsible only for a small percentage of each claimant’s recovery and only if exposure actually occurred.

The Court adopted the analysis of Dr. Charles E. Bates of Bates White.  It found that $25 million was a reliable estimate of Garlock’s liability to its approximately 4000 current mesothelioma
Continue Reading North Carolina Bankruptcy Court Limits Garlock’s Asbestos Liabilities and Ford Wants the Court Records Unsealed