2BInformed: Engaging with EPA, OSHA’s New Regulation, and Asbestos
Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County - In this asbestos action, defendant Crosby moved for summary judgment on duty to warn and causation grounds. Plaintiff Joseph Deroy opposed the motion....more
Court: Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle - In this asbestos action, decedent Donald Jordonek used brake lathes and grinders manufactured by AMMCO while working at a tire center in Ohio from 1972 until 1999. The...more
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, October 21, 2022 - In this case, the plaintiffs Arnold and Ruth Pritt allege that Arnold Pritt (“Plaintiff”) was exposed to asbestos while serving in the...more
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, October 11, 2022 In this asbestos action, the plaintiff Gloria Maryn alleged exposure to asbestos from laundering the clothes of her son, Victor Arana. Mr. Arana...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 29, 2022 - The Callen Cortez (“Plaintiff”) matter has been previously reported by the Asbestos Case Tracker. At current issue is the...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 8, 2022 - In this asbestos matter, the defendant ViacomCBS Inc. (“Westinghouse”) moved for partial summary judgment as to Decedent Callen Cortez’s...more
New Jersey Supreme Court, June 30, 2022 - In this asbestos action, decedent Willis Edenfield (“Edenfield”) commenced a failure to warn product liability action against defendant Union Carbide. The Appellate Division...more
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, June 29, 2022 - In this asbestos action, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to reargue a motion for summary judgement filed by defendant Strick Trailers, LLC...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 1, 2022 - The decedent’s widow brought this suit on behalf of the decedent alleging that the decedent’s occupational exposure to asbestos during...more
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, March 28, 2022 - In this asbestos action, plaintiff Arnold Pritt alleged that he was exposed to asbestos during his service in the U.S. Navy, and over the course...more
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled on March 28, 2022, that Delaware’s burden-shifting requirement, known as “Stigliano,” for deciding summary judgment is a “proper framework” in asbestos exposure cases, however, the particular...more
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, March 3, 2022 - Plaintiff Jerome Gehant served in the US Navy from 1967 until 1970 on the USS America as a boiler technician. The plaintiff...more
The Asbestos Case Tracker has been following developing issues regarding hundreds of asbestos exposure cases involving plaintiffs who worked for W.R. Grace at the Libby, Montana mine and facilities. Recently, a Great Falls,...more
Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 5, Comment b (1998), the supplier of a product generally must warn about only those risks associated with the product itself, not those associated with the...more
The Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in Carolyn Coffman et al v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., at least implicitly, recognized a “bare metal defense” for the first time under Tennessee law. The Court addressed the...more
In a consolidated appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently looked at the proximate cause standard for asbestos cases in Davis v. John Crane. 2019 WL 5558711 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019). In so doing, the appellate court...more
On September 5, 2018, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District of Illinois introduced heightened standards for plaintiffs to establish duty and causation in asbestos litigation through its reversal of a McLean County trial...more
Colleagues and clients frequently pose the question whether after more than forty years the asbestos litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in...more
On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries held that, under maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn of asbestos or other hazardous parts when its own product, although...more
In an eagerly anticipated decision by the asbestos bar, the United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems et al. v. DeVries et at., Dkt. No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (March 19, 2019) rejected the “bare metal defense” as...more
In Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. et al. v. DeVries et al., No. 17-1104 (March 19, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under federal maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires the...more
On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this maritime tort case involving the availability of...more
On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the first case involving maritime law in several years. In Air & Liquid Systems Corp. et al v. Devries, et al, 586 US ___ (2019), Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority...more
In its decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held, under maritime law, that manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts manufactured and added to their products by third parties. The...more
On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, holding that in the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when: 1) its product requires incorporation...more