2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - Plaintiff Irma Lee LaGrange filed a motion in this asbestos action seeking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand to state...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - In ACT’s continuing coverage of the Robichaux matter, Felton Robichaux filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against a number of...more
On January 5, 2023, a Louisiana appellate court issued a divided opinion that addressed the nature of take-home asbestos claims. Pete v. Bolan Marine & Manufacturing Co., LLC, 2021-0626 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/5/23), 2023 La. App....more
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - In this asbestos action, decedent Gayle LeBeau alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from her father and brother’s work at the Avondale...more
United States District Court of the District of Nevada, September 19, 2022 - The plaintiff commenced this action in early 2020 by filing his Complaint against 13 defendants. He suffers from mesothelioma and alleged...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 28, 2022 - As previously reported in the Asbestos Case Tracker, decedent Callen Cortez alleged direct occupational exposure to asbestos, as well as...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; July 18, 2022 - Plaintiffs filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Decedent, Callan Cortez, alleging that Mr. Cortez contracted mesothelioma as a...more
The plaintiff, Callen Cortez, was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 2, 2020. On July 1, 2020, he filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Avondale and approximately thirty-four other defendants, alleging that he contracted...more
Recently, a divided Supreme Court of Virginia, in a 4-3 decision, recognized an employer’s liability for “take home” exposure. In Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 818 S.E.2d 805 (Va. 2018), the Supreme Court held that...more
In a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the court held that the dangers of secondary asbestos exposure were not foreseeable in and before 1955. Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse TEC,...more
In its recent decision, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”), holding that under the State’s laws an employer owed no duty of care to...more
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations—contemporarily nicknamed “the Ocean State” is known for famous clear-broth Quahog clam chowder, The Breakers Mansion, the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and its...more
A California appellate court recently upheld the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in a secondary exposure asbestos case where Plaintiffs could offer no admissible evidence that decedent’s father worked around...more
In recent years federal courts have clarified and narrowed the scope of personal jurisdiction as it applies to nonresident defendants, particularly in mass tort and toxic exposure cases. However, a recent decision coming out...more
On December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of California held that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos in their businesses includes a duty to take reasonable care to...more
Companies facing "take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20 Arizona Court of...more
In a recent published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an employer does not owe a duty of care to the child of an employee who contracts mesothelioma from asbestos brought home on the employee’s work clothes,...more
On August 20, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted petitions for review in two published decisions that reached different conclusions on whether a defendant owed a duty for take-home exposures. Both matters (Haver v....more