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
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
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
Employers Now Have Duty to Take-Home Exposure Plaintiffs -
On May 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal answered a question which has been asked repeatedly since the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in...more
On September 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an asbestos lawsuit brought against the owner of a shipyard in Puget Sound on the basis that “no reasonable fact finder could conclude that...more
Back to Top