2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Central District of California- In this action, the plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of the decedent, William Banks, in Los Angeles County Superior Court and thereafter...more
In this asbestos action, plaintiff Michael Marcus alleged that he developed mesothelioma from working with or around asbestos-containing products while serving in the United States Navy. The plaintiff brought claims of design...more
The Middle District of Pennsylvania’s opinion in Gorton v. Warren Pumps, LLC supported the government contractor defense and set forth a road map for defendants to follow to win summary judgment. The court, relying on the...more
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington - In this asbestos action, the plaintiff alleges that decedent David Welch’s mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos from his service in the U.S. Navy...more
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued two decisions that present challenges to defendants in prevailing at summary judgment in asbestos cases....more
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, August 2, 2022 - Plaintiffs Kathryn and Earl Heilner filed a lawsuit against Foster Wheeler and 71 other defendants in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas...more
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, March 3, 2022 - Plaintiff Jerome Gehant served in the US Navy from 1967 until 1970 on the USS America as a boiler technician. The plaintiff...more
In Murphy v. Viad Corporation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of specific personal jurisdiction in the context of asbestos claims under the standard set...more
Colleagues and clients frequently pose the question whether after more than forty years the asbestos litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in...more
On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries held that, under maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn of asbestos or other hazardous parts when its own product, although...more
In an eagerly anticipated decision by the asbestos bar, the United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems et al. v. DeVries et at., Dkt. No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (March 19, 2019) rejected the “bare metal defense” as...more
In Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. et al. v. DeVries et al., No. 17-1104 (March 19, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under federal maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires the...more
On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this maritime tort case involving the availability of...more
On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the first case involving maritime law in several years. In Air & Liquid Systems Corp. et al v. Devries, et al, 586 US ___ (2019), Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority...more
In its decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held, under maritime law, that manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts manufactured and added to their products by third parties. The...more
On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, holding that in the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when: 1) its product requires incorporation...more
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