Asbestos Litigation

News & Analysis as of

NYCAL Presiding Judge Rules Manufacturer Should Have Reasonably Anticipated Asbestos Litigation 10 Years Before First Lawsuit

On November 5, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton, presiding judge over the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL), ruled in Warren v. AmChem Products, et al., 190281/2014, that J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., was subject to...more

Asbestos: the French State Council (“Conseil d’Etat”) holds the State liable when an employer is deemed responsible for...

On the 9th of November 2015, the French State Council (“Conseil d’Etat”) admitted for the first time the possibility for an employer held liable on the grounds of inexcusable fault to take action against the State so as to be...more

Illinois Asbestos Court Rules on Personal Jurisdiction in First Post-Daimler Decisions

In what is believed to be the Court’s first post-Daimler written decisions on the issue, Madison County, Illinois Judge Stephen A. Stobbs recently issued two decisions addressing whether the Court has personal jurisdiction...more

Insurer’s Action To Arbitrate Stayed In Lieu Of Earlier-Filed State Court Coverage Action

An Illinois federal court recently stayed an insurer’s petition to compel arbitration of a dispute with its policyholder, finding that abstention in favor of an earlier-filed suit involving the parties was appropriate under...more

Southern District of Illinois Court Denies Motion to Exclude “Every Exposure” Opinion

On September 21, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied a defendant’s motion in limine to exclude expert testimony in an asbestos case. Judge Staci M. Yandle denied General...more

Illinois Supreme Court Decision Bars Employee from Bringing a Direct Civil Action against Employer for Alleged Asbestos Exposure...

In Folta v. Ferro Engineering, Ill.S.Ct. Docket No. 118070, Nov. 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed an Illinois Appellate Court decision and held that a personal injury and subsequent wrongful death suit brought on...more

Florida Supreme Court Protecting the Rights of Citizens

In another victory for the injured victims of our State, yesterday the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in a products liability case, Aubin v. Union Carbide, which reversed an appellate court’s adoption of more...more

Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding...more

Federal Court Allows Sealing Of A Petition Seeking Confirmation Of Arbitral Award

On August 14, 2015, a federal district court in New York entered an order allowing a petition to confirm an arbitration award to be filed in redacted form with the arbitration award to be filed under seal. The case is pending...more

Better Late Than Never: The California Supreme Court Reverses Itself, Holding That Corporate Policyholders May Assign Insurance...

Asset purchase and sale transactions are a preferred structure for many corporate deals. For a variety of reasons, it may be prudent for businesses or product lines to be transferred through these transactions, and an asset...more

California Court of Appeal Bars Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Death Action Involving an Employee Who Used his Employer’s...

The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a pipe manufacturer based upon the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. Melendrez et al. v....more

Insurance Recovery Law - August 2015 #2

Good News for Corporate Policyholders: Insurer Cannot Refuse Coverage Based on Insured's Assignment of Rights Under Policies After Loss Has Occurred - Why it matters: Reversing its holding in a 2003 case, the Supreme...more

California Declares New Rules for Assignment of Long Tail Claims

Last week, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California changed the law governing anti-assignment provisions in liability insurance policies. Twelve years ago, in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity...more

California Supreme Court Reverses Prior Ruling On Anti-Assignment Clauses

In Fluor Corporation v. The Superior Court of Orange County (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., real party in interest), 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Aug. 20, 2015), the California Supreme Court determined that California Insurance...more

Attention All Co-Defendants: Make Your Own Objections, Don’t Rely on a Co-Defendant

A recent Pennsylvania case presents the question: can a party rely on its co-defendant’s objections at trial, or must it join in an objection or make its own? In Amato v. Bell & Gossett, 116 A. 3d 607 (Pa. Super 2015),...more

U.S. construction companies and manager face fines of nearly $2 million for exposing workers to asbestos

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) has cited a construction company and its manager for asbestos-related violations and imposed fines of almost $2 million.  Safety regulators are increasingly taking...more

Victory for California Policyholders

Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, No. S205889, 2015 WL4938295 (Cal. 2015), that an insurer is precluded from refusing to honor an insured’s assignment of rights for past losses...more

Mergers Just Became Safer for California’s Corporate Policyholders

This morning the California Supreme Court announced the thoroughly sensible ruling that a corporation may transfer its rights under liability insurance policies without obtaining the consent of the insurance company. Fluor...more

Illinois appellate court strengthens sole proximate cause defense in asbestos cases

The question of whether a product manufacturer or employer in an asbestos lawsuit can introduce evidence of the plaintiff’s exposures to asbestos from other sources has become a highly contested issue. There is a lengthy...more

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Asbestos Verdict on Sole Proximate Cause Argument

In Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., the Fourth District of Illinois recently overturned a $1.4 million verdict against the Illinois Central Railroad. At trial, the Court had excluded evidence of the decedent's work at...more

Considering Consolidating Cases for Trial

We have managed to pretty much avoid asbestos litigation. Sure, we encounter decisions from asbestos cases that sometimes impact our own cases. They even sometimes appear in our posts, but rarely as a focus. We have been...more

Product Liability Update - July 2015

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more

Proposed California Legislation Would Mandate Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Disclosures Statewide

California Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) has introduced and sponsored Assembly Bill No. 597, the Asbestos Tort Claim Trust Transparency Act, which if passed would require asbestos plaintiffs to disclose all...more

"Appellate Court Affirms Ruling Allowing Punitive Damages in New York City Asbestos Cases"

In a unanimous ruling decided July 9, 2015, New York's Appellate Division, First Department declined to overrule an April 2014 order by Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the then-coordinating justice of the New York City Asbestos...more

“Continuous” Trigger is Alive and Well in Pennsylvania

In recent years, insurers have attempted to avoid their coverage obligations for their policyholders’ asbestos personal injury claims by challenging longstanding trigger of coverage rulings from the 1980s and 1990s. Although...more

132 Results
View per page
Page: of 6

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.