Toxic Exposure

News & Analysis as of

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

Missouri’s General Rule Of One Corporation Not Being Liable For Another’s Conduct Is Reaffirmed

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

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Toxic Tort Claims Based on Unreliable Experts

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

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

Hydrocarbon Exposure Reconsidered

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

TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: EPA Adds and Removes Chemicals Based on New Data

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

“We Need to Talk” – OSHA is Looking to Start a Dialogue on Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits

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

Nebraska Supreme Court Holds Pollution Exclusion Applicable to Lead Paint Claim

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

Insurance Recovery Law - September 2014

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

‘Chemical (Over)reaction’?: States Push for Tighter Regulation of Consumer Products

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

Continuing Litigation Over Titanium Dioxide in Sunscreen and Cosmetics Underscores Importance of Exposure Assessments in...

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

Responsible Mercury Management Post-MEBA

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

N.J. Federal Court Dismisses Environmental Suit Against Lockheed Martin for Lack of Health Threat

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

EPA's Concern Over TCE Vapor Intrusion Is Misguided

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

New Wave of State Law Air Pollution Torts?

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

Other 2014 Environmental and Land Use Legislation: Fracking, Brownfields, State Land Conservation, Private Easements, Wood Burning...

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

First Circuit Court of Appeals Refuses to Relax Injury Requirement for Medical Monitoring Claims

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

Toxic Tort & Product Liability Quarterly Volume 7, Number 3

PREEMPTION - 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

Environmental Alert: "Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Causation Standard in Multiple Source Toxic Tort Cases"

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

Texas Supreme Court: “Dose Matters” In Mesothelioma Cases Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., No. 10-0775

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

Workplace toxins – are you a victim?

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

Cornell Ruling Is Cause for Experts’ Concern

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

Are Personal Injury Damages Avaiable in a Nuisance Case?

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

Mississippi High Court Vacates Widow’s $1.1 Million Silica Sand Verdict for Insufficient Evidence

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

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

85 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4