2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
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
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - Plaintiff Linda Crossland alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from her husband’s clothing while he was employed at the Avondale Shipyards, where he...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 12, 2022 - In this asbestos action, Plaintiff Ruby Lee Marie Falgout (“Plaintiff”) alleged take-home exposure from laundering her husband’s...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
Supreme Court of New York, County of Erie , August 25, 2022 - In this asbestos action, plaintiff Eric Cislo alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from his father’s work with Bison boilers from 1969 until the early...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
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin , July 13, 2022 - Plaintiffs Trisha and David Babler filed a lawsuit to recover damages Trisha allegedly sustained as a result of “take-home” asbestos...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, 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
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 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
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
On July 12, 2018, in an unpublished opinion, the Illinois 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the Madison County Court, which had denied Ford Motor Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in an...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
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
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
New Developments - Which Came First: Subject Matter or Personal Jurisdiction? Two recent Eastern District of Missouri cases examined the same issue, yet the court reached opposite results. In Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson...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
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
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