Asbestos

News & Analysis as of

Chicago Federal Court Bars Expert Testimony Espousing the “Any Exposure” Theory

On December 22, 2014, in a pre-trial ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Krik v. Crane Co., et al., No. 1:10-cv-07435 (N.D. Ill. December 22, 2014) barred perennial plaintiff’s expert Dr....more

Designers, Contractors and Insurers Take Note: Recent Amendment to IL Statute of Repose Strips Asbestos Defense, Exposes Decades...

On December 19, 2014 the Illinois legislature amended the Illinois construction statute of repose to eliminate its protection in asbestos exposure cases (Public Act 098-1131). Beginning June 1, 2015, design professionals and...more

District Court in Louisiana Nixes “Bystander Damages” for Relatives of Asbestos Victims

In Comardelle v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company et al., 2014 WL 5762841, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a claim for “bystander damages” allegedly resulting from the...more

California Appellate Court Upholds Bar to Liability by Premises Owners for Secondary Exposure

In Wanda Beckering v. Shell Oil Company, 2014 WL 6611088, the Second District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant Shell Oil Company, finding that the plaintiff was...more

Illinois Appellate Court Finds Defendant Not Liable for “Speculative” Workplace Asbestos Exposure

The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District affirmed a jury’s defense verdict in Holloway v. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois, 2014 IL App (4th) 131118 (December 16, 2014). The plaintiff testified that from...more

One Expert In, One Expert Out in Illinois Asbestos Case

An Illinois federal judge recently approved only one of two well-known asbestos experts to testify in a former pipefitter’s asbestos exposure case. U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the Northern District of Illinois held...more

“Rip & Run” Asbestos Abatement Not Taken Lightly By the U.S. Government

On November 12, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled on the Northern District of New York’s sentencing of an air monitoring contractor criminally prosecuted for “rip & run” asbestos abatement projects, i.e.,...more

The Seemingly Interminable Garlock Saga: Where Are We Now?

As reported in our February 2014 edition, the bankruptcy court estimating Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC’s asbestos liability uncovered significant evidence “that the last 10 years of its participation in the tort system...more

Cedent Loses Motion For Reinsurance Payments Due To Late Notice And “Unsatisfactory” Proof Of Loss, Notwithstanding “Follow The...

In a reinsurance coverage dispute involving coverage for an underlying settlement of asbestos liability, a New York court considered whether the defenses of failure to provide prompt notice and failure to provide satisfactory...more

Pennsylvania Appeals Court Affirms Defendants’ Summary Judgments on Bystander Exposure Claims

Allegations of bystander exposure to asbestos via laundry is a common claim in cases where a plaintiff has no apparent occupational exposure but instead alleges that her asbestos-related disease was caused by exposure to...more

Coverage Options for Employee Asbestos Claims

Over the past year, courts in Illinois and Pennsylvania have dramatically altered the ability of an employee to bring claims against past and present employers for asbestos-related injuries. Traditionally, employees were...more

New Jersey Appellate Court Keeps “Running Spigot” Open on Allocation of Defense Costs Under Non-Eroding-Limit Fronting Policies...

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently affirmed each of several challenged rulings rendered in a long-running coverage dispute between plaintiff IMO Industries and its many historical insurers arising from asbestos...more

Maryland Court Reconsiders a Company’s Duty to Warn of Asbestos-containing Replacement Parts It Did Not Manufacture or Otherwise...

Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals recently reconsidered the duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that the defendants did not manufacture or place in the stream of commerce in Philip Royce May v. Air &...more

Does asbestosis qualify under the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act?

Asbestosis is covered under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Diseases Act. In other words, Illinois workers who develop this condition as a consequence of employment are entitled to benefits under state...more

Employers’ Asbestos Liabilities Do Not Extend to Workers’ Spouses

Two federal judges recently dismissed the claims of the spouses of workers who purportedly carried asbestos fibers home from their workplaces. In July 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma...more

Washington Supreme Court Ratifies Employer Immunity for Asbestos Exposure

The Washington Supreme Court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer defending an asbestos lawsuit brought by a former employee. In Walston v. Boeing Co., No. 88511-7 (September 18, 2014), the Supreme...more

Policy Observer - September 2014

All Sums or Pro Rata: Did You Get the Coverage You Bought? In recent decades, liabilities stemming from long-term bodily injury or property damage—as from exposure to asbestos or contamination of the environment—have...more

Take-Home Exposure Claims Under Review by California's High Court

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

Pennsylvania Does Not Recognize Duty to Warn an Employee’s Spouse

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

Injured Sailors May Seek Punitive Damages in the Asbestos MDL

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who oversees asbestos multidistrict litigation, issued a decision in July permitting injured sailors to seek punitive damage awards. In Re:...more

Update: California Supreme Court to Review Secondary Asbestos Exposure Cases

In Sedgwick’s June 2014 Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Update, we reported on two conflicting decisions from different California appellate courts regarding companies’ duty to prevent “take home exposures” to asbestos...more

Asbestos Alert: Failure To Recognize A Defendant’s Name Insufficient To Support Summary Judgment

Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (July 21, 2014) - Metalclad was an insulation contractor. Mark Ganoe worked in Department 132 at Goodyear Tire &...more

Texas Supreme Court Reaffirms Causation Standard

In Bostic, et. al. v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 57 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 1091, the Supreme Court of Texas reaffirmed that the “substantial factor” causation test applies in asbestos personal injury cases, defined the quantitative...more

Pennsylvania Statute of Repose Applies to Asbestos Claims

In Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 2014 Pa. Super. 132, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the statute of repose applicable to designers and constructors of improvements to real property applied to asbestos claims....more

Florida High Court to Decide Which Test Governs Component Parts Doctrine

On April 8, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an asbestos case concerning the liability of a defendant who has sold a component part to a manufacturer who then incorporates the part into its own...more

115 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5

"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*

*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.
×