DynCorp's 'Strategic' Defense In Drug Crop Spraying Suit
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
In Blanks v. Fluor Corp., ____ S.W.3d ____ (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) WL 4589815, September 16, 2014), the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict against Fluor Corporation, because it was improperly based on the conduct...more
Underscoring the importance of reliable expert methodology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a personal injury suit based on unreliable expert testimony. See Henry v. St Croix Alumina,...more
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
You might recall previous entries discussing the $2.9 million Dallas County verdict and judgment in Parr v. Aruba. Not all similar suits have the same result.
Michael and Myra Cerny sued Marathon Oil Corp. and Plains...more
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on October 23, 2014, that it has updated its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. According to EPA, the updated TSCA Work Plan...more
Everyone knows that the permissible exposure limits or PELs set forth in various OSHA standards are pretty old (most have not been updated since 1971), and that we’ve learned a lot about chemical exposure and human health in...more
In its recent decision in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dantzler, the Supreme Court of Nebraska had occasion to consider the application of pollution exclusion to an underlying personal injury claim involving an...more
Pollution Exclusion Doesn’t Bar Coverage for Worker Exposed to Hazardous Chemicals That Were Not “Dispersed”:
Why it matters -
A federal district court in Texas strictly construed a pollution exclusion in...more
The chemical wars are in full swing. And for consumer products and chemicals manufacturers, victory on the regulatory front is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Progressive legislators in states such as California,...more
In an ongoing Proposition 65 litigation brought in late 2013 by the Public Interest Alliance (PIA) targeting more than 100 sun-protection and powder-cosmetics manufacturers, plaintiff claims defendants’ products expose...more
Several domestic industries have historically produced elemental mercury as either a main product or a byproduct of their operations. This mercury has typically been sold to third parties that have utilized it in the...more
A New Jersey federal court recently dismissed an environmental suit against Lockheed Martin, rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that any exposure to particular environmental contaminants is harmful. Leese v. Lockheed Martin...more
On July 9, 2014, the Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Division in Region 9 issued a memo to staff setting an “operational framework” to address “inhalation exposures [to trichloroethylene] in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Bell v. Cheswick could pave the way for more state common law air pollution tort suits and greater exposure for emitters.
A new wave of state common law air pollution...more
The General Assembly passed noteworthy bills on six diverse environmental and land use subjects.
Hydraulic Fracturing Waste -
A deceptively simple bill concerning hydraulic fracturing waste, PA 14-200, emerged...more
In Genereux v. Raytheon Co., No. 13-1921, 2014 WL 2579908 (1st Cir. June 10, 2014), the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against class action plaintiffs seeking recovery for medical monitoring costs...more
Supreme Court Says CERCLA Does Not Preempt Repose Defense for Tort Claims -
The U.S. Supreme Court has put to rest a longstanding legal question affecting the deadline for plaintiffs to bring toxic tort...more
The Texas Supreme Court took what appears to be a middle ground in toxic tort cases involving exposure to the same substance from multiple sources. The Court rejected the “but for” standard advocated by the defendant, but...more
Yesterday, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed the substantial-factor standard of causation recognized in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, and held that it applies in mesothelioma cases. The Court made clear that in...more
Every day throughout Illinois, and the rest of the country, workers in nearly every field and in a range of working environments are exposed to toxins, such as chemicals and gases, in the workplace. In some cases, this...more
I recently co-authored an article for Law360 entitled “Cornell Ruling Is Cause for Experts’ Concern,” which covered the ruling by the New York Court of Appeals in Cornell v. 360 West 51st St. Realty, LLC (2014 NY Slip Op...more
As promised, on May 22, today’s post is a study of the personal injury issues raised by the defendants in Parr v. Aruba.
In this post we raise the question and discuss what the parties believe the answer should be....more
The Mississippi Supreme Court recently reversed a $1.1 million jury verdict of a widow of a former railroad worker. In Mississippi Valley Silica Company, Inc. v. Reeves, (Supreme Court of Mississippi, No. 2012-CA-01702-SCT,...more
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
Back to Top