Asbestos Toxic Exposure

News & Analysis as of

Court Decides Take-Home Exposure Duty Claims with 'Wide-Ranging Impact'

Employers and premises owners have a duty to "members of a worker's household" to exercise ordinary care to prevent take-home asbestos exposures, the California Supreme Court held on December 1, 2016. This ruling expands...more

Florida Appellate Court Reverses Verdict Against Valve Manufacturer in Asbestos Case - Decision: Trial Court Abused Discretion in...

Manufacturers of products that contained chrysotile asbestos won a major victory in Crane Co. v. DeLisle on Sept. 14, 2016, when Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal (Fourth DCA) reversed a verdict entered against a...more

Worker entitled to asbestos records for government building he worked in, but not list of employees in building

A worker was entitled to asbestos records for the government building he worked in. However, he was not entitled to a list of government employees who worked in the building and therefore who may have been exposed to...more

"Take-Home" Asbestos Case Decision Could have Ripple Effect

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

You Should Know - September 2016

Asbestos: Lethal and Still a Threat to All Americans: Backpack: check. Pencils: check. Respirator: ??? Two years ago, the Ocean View School District in Orange County, California, was forced to close...more

Toxic Tort & Product Liability Quarterly Vol. 9, No. 3, August 2016

California Appellate Court Upholds “Every Exposure” Theory - Deferring to the role of a jury in resolving questions of competing scientific theories, a California appeals court upheld a trial court’s ruling allowing...more

“All Sums” Claims Another Victory, This Time In New York

In Viking Pump, Inc., et al. v. TIG Insurance Co., et al., 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 1018 (N.Y. May 3, 2016), policyholders scored a victory when New York’s highest court applied “all sums” allocation and vertical exhaustion. The...more

Feds Crack Down on Unsafe Asbestos Removal

The unsafe removal of asbestos by unprotected workers poses a huge health and safety risk in today’s workplace. Although asbestos is known to cause lung cancer and mesothelioma, it is not banned and continues to pose dangers...more

Talc Litigation: The Big Picture

In 2015 and 2016, juries awarded $13 million in a talc case in California, and $72 million and $55 million in talc cases tried in Missouri. The California plaintiff argued that she used talcum powder which contained...more

Missouri Court Applies Borrowing Statute to Bar Illinois Asbestos Claims

In Wolfe, et al. v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., et al., Cause No. 1522-CC11026 (Div. No. 4), the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, 22nd Circuit, entered an April 11, 2016, Order dismissing certain defendants from an...more

Injury resulting from exposure to asbestos does not exist separately to the injury of anxiety to workers of classified...

This client alert is relevant for companies that are exposed to industrial risks in France, and addresses in particular the asbestos cases and the related injuries. It points out the fact that, following the judgment rendered...more

Indiana High Court Rules Statute of Repose Inapplicable in Cases of Protracted Exposure to Substances

On March 2, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court rendered an opinion in the consolidated appeals in three cases. The Court held that the Indiana Product Liability Act’s statute of repose does not apply to cases involving...more

Court Decision Makes it Easier for Plaintiffs to Pursue Claims Against Companies in Indiana

On March 2, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court struck down Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act and held that its statute of repose “does not apply to cases involving protracted exposure to an inherently dangerous...more

Environmental exposure: a step towards compensation of neighbours of former asbestos-using plants?

On 22 October 2015, the Paris Civil Court ("Tribunal de grande instance de Paris") handed down a judgment concerning environmental exposure to asbestos which could pave the way towards compensation of neighbours of industrial...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

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

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

Louisiana Federal Court Excludes “Every Exposure” Testimony

Adding to the growing body of case law that rejects the so-called “every exposure” theory, a federal court in Louisiana has excluded specific causation opinions of a plaintiffs’ expert who relied on the theory, finding that...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

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

CA Appellate Courts: Secondary Exposure Claims Permitted Against Product Manufacturers, But Not Premises Owners

Two California Courts of Appeal recently decided cases that will significantly impact secondary asbestos exposure claims in California. The result is that premises owners have no duty to protect family members of workers on...more

Maryland High Court, Bucking Trend, Allows Expert to Testify that “Each and Every Exposure” to Asbestos Is Causally Related to...

To advance claims against as many defendants as possible, plaintiff attorneys in asbestos litigation routinely attempt to introduce expert testimony to the effect that “each and every exposure” to asbestos was a “substantial”...more

"Every Asbestos Exposure Counts" - Maryland Affirms Theory

Maryland's highest appellate court ruled last week that a plaintiff's expert in an asbestos injury lawsuit could testify that every single exposure to asbestos substantially contributes to the development of mesothelioma,...more

Victory on Appeal for Georgia-Pacific: No Duty to Warn of Dangers of Secondhand Exposure to Asbestos Until 1972

In Georgia Pacific LLC v. Farrar, No. 102 Sept. Term 2012, 2013 WL 3456573 (Md. July 8, 2013), Maryland’s highest court established that manufacturers of asbestos-containing products cannot be liable to household members...more

27 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×