2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of New York, New York County - Plaintiff Kevin Burns filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against numerous defendants, including Burnham, testifying that while he worked as a plumber he was exposed...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Jan. 13 Plaintiff Glen King alleged that his exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment with the United States Navy, Louisiana State...more
On September 1, 2021, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s verdict and additur in favor of Plaintiffs in the matter of Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., et al. Fisher...more
On January 18, 2022, the Connecticut Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s opinion which struck claims of negligence, premises liability and recklessness predicated on increased risk of future harm from asbestos exposure....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
In a recent decision on an asbestos exposure case, a New Jersey court once again reminded us that the admissibility of an expert opinion hinges upon the substance of the opinion, rather than the conclusions of the expert...more
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, February 15, 2022 - In this asbestos action, Carl Gay alleged that he developed mesothelioma after a forty-year career. From 1974 until 1976, Gay worked as a...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
Welcome to the second 2019 issue of Product Lines – our quarterly e-newsletter that focuses on toxic torts and products liability issues. For this edition, we are reporting on several important and timely legal issues. As...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
The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. et al. v. Devries et al. and is set to wade into the fiercely contested waters surrounding the bare metal defense under...more
In January 2018, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s remand of an asbestos case to state court for being untimely, based on a federal officer removal statute, 28...more
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Elecs., Inc., 2017 Ariz. LEXIS 121 (Ariz. May 10, 2017) - Between 1960 and 2000, Carlos Tarazon (“Tarazon”) performed work installing and repairing water piping for various contractors and...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