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
Can a company be found liable for failure to warn about hazards of another company’s product used in packaging for its own product? What about when the company wasn’t warned that packaging could contain anything potentially...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
On September 1, 2021, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s verdict and additur in favor of Plaintiffs in the matter of Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly v. Gen. Elec. Co., et al. Fisher...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
Three years and one pandemic after the U.S. Supreme Court provided guidance in March 2019 on the bare metal defense in asbestos litigation commonly known as “DeVries,” the bare metal defense is alive and well. Some predicted...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
Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for...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
Massachusetts Federal Court Dismisses Suit By Japanese Plaintiffs Against Massachusetts Reactor Designer For Japanese Disaster Based On Forum Non Conveniens, Citing Japanese Compensation System That Provided Alternative Forum...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