2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
In Michigan, various state employment laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees. But can an employee pursue a public policy retaliation claim against the employer in addition to a statutory retaliation claim?...more
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle - Plaintiff Jeffery Saunders filed an action against numerous defendants, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products and sustained resulting injuries...more
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - Plaintiff Frank P. Ragusa Jr. filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans alleging he was exposed to...more
The case between Equitas and Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI) has been discontinued, bringing to an end a dispute that was due to be heard by the UK Supreme Court this week. Last year’s ruling by the Court of Appeal therefore...more
The Superior Court of Connecticut (Judicial District of Hartford) (“Court”) addressed in a September 30th opinion certain issues arising in an asbestos exposure case. See Julian Poce, et al., v. O&G Industries, Inc., et al.,...more
In April 2019, the French Supreme Court opened the way for all workers exposed to asbestos to claim compensation for emotional distress, or "anxiety," caused by the fear of contracting a serious disease, even if claimants...more
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued a May 15th news release stating that it cited two Missouri contractors for allegedly failing to comply with asbestos removal standards while performing...more
In the first judgment to provide guidance on the allocation of mesothelioma liabilities at a reinsurance level, the Court of Appeal in Equitas Insurance Limited v Municipal Mutual Insurance Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 718 has...more
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado recognized a defendant’s potential liability based on take-home exposure. In Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et. al., No. 18-cv-01006, Plaintiff...more
The Rise of Take-Home or Secondary Exposure Asbestos Claims - Take-home asbestos claims are asserted by or on behalf of individuals who claim an asbestos-related injury arising from exposure to asbestos fibers through...more
In Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, et al., C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to manufacturers of...more
Welcome to our inaugural issue of Product Lines—our e-newsletter focusing on toxic torts and products liability news and issues. As we all know, there are many issues that arise in this complex area of the law every day. We...more
Wisconsin’s exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation has long been a bulwark against civil suits brought by employees (subject to a few narrow exceptions not applicable here). This bulwark has survived a creative attack in...more
District court predicts that Pennsylvania will not recognize a duty to protect or warn the spouse of an employee in “take home” or “household” asbestos exposure cases. On August 26, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S....more
In yet another twist in the tortured labors of the Hercules jurisprudence regarding removal of general maritime law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), the Eastern District of Louisiana has generated a new, divergent “head” on...more