On July 7, 2016 a Florida jury rendered a defense verdict on behalf of building products manufacturer Certainteed Corporation (“Certainteed”). In this case, it was alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma from his work cutting couplings on Certainteed asbestos-containing irrigation pipe next to his family property for an approximate two-week period in either 1969 or 1970. Through discovery it was learned that some of the pipe was removed and reinstalled. After finding witnesses who were able to testify where the …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Appellate Court Grants New Trial Due to Lower Court’s Error on Jury Charge as to “Recklessness Standard”
In the matter of the Estate of Lee Holdsworth, in the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County (Lower Court), judgment was entered against the defendant Crane Co. upon a jury verdict finding that Crane Co. was 35 percent liable for the damages arising from injuries sustained by Lee Holdsworth (the plaintiff’s decedent) as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products used as component parts with the valves that defendant produced. The jury also determined the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of …
Continue ReadingCourt of Appeals Denies Plaintiff’s Request of Joinder for Claims Against Both Asbestos Tobacco Defendants
In an asbestos matter, 15 months after filing suit—after most of the deadlines for discovery and naming of witnesses had passed—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining several tobacco companies on a theory of synergy. The plaintiff’s argued that their lung cancer was caused both by smoking and exposure to asbestos. The Circuit Court dismissed them as being improperly joined on the special asbestos docket but with leave to refile the case on the general civil docket. Sixteen months later, after all claims against the …
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert “Cumulative Exposure Theory” Does Not Fit Georgia Causation Standard and Reverses Judgment in Favor of Defendant
In a follow up to a case previously reported on in ACT, the Georgia Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of Georgia with respect to the admission of testimony from the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerrod Abraham, and his “Cumulative Exposure Theory.”
This case first commenced when the plaintiff and his wife, Roy and Milva Knight, sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., alleging that Roy’s mesothelioma was caused from exposure to asbestos while he was working …
Continue ReadingWhat Does New York’s Decision on Duty to Warn Mean Going Forward in Asbestos Litigation?
New York’s highest court has imposed a duty on equipment manufacturers to warn about asbestos containing products manufactured by other manufacturers. This long-awaited decision now resolves the duty issue, but what does it mean going forward in asbestos litigation?
On June 28, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in the Dummitt/Suttner cases that Crane Co. had a “a duty to warn of the danger arising from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product which, as …
Continue ReadingMeeting Agendas Between Non-Party Consultant and Counsel for Asbestos Friction Clients Not Privileged
The plaintiffs’ law firm of Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC (Maune) subpoenaed documents from Exponent, Inc., a non-party in Maune’s asbestos litigation pending in Madison County, Illinois. At the request of Exponent, the circuit court held Exponent in friendly civil contempt for refusing to provide an unredacted version of certain documents requested in Maune’s subpoena. Exponent appealed this contempt order as well as the underlying discovery order. Exponent argued that the circuit court abused its discretion in requiring production of these documents, because …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff Could Not Side-Step Manville Trust by Directly Suing Defendant Where Claim was a Pre-Petition Claim Subject to Discharge by Bankruptcy
The plaintiff, Lynda Berry, filed an asbestos lawsuit in Louisiana against Graphic Packaging International for mesothelioma due secondary exposure from her husband’s work at the Manville Forest Products (MFP) mill from 1961-2010. The plaintiff’s petition included claims against Manville for asbestos it produced, and claims against Graphic for negligently maintaining the premises. Graphic filed an emergency motion for enforcement of the bankruptcy confirmation orders of the Johns-Manville Corporation and MFP. Graphic argued it was a successor of MFP, and as such, the plaintiff must first …
Continue Reading2016 Mid-Year Asbestos Case Tracker Compendium
Goldberg Segalla’s Asbestos Case Tracker blog has been hailed as the go-to resource for real-time access to all reported asbestos decisions from federal and state courts throughout the United States. Our blog also reports on legislative updates, significant verdicts, and other critical developments in the asbestos area.
We have covered developing trends regarding cutting edge topics in this practice area, which led us to compile these decisions by category to better understand these developments. We are pleased to provide this category-organized compendium of Asbestos Case …
Continue ReadingMadison County, IL Continues to Top the List for Asbestos Filings
According to a recent article published by the Madison County Record, Madison County, Illinois continues to top the list as the jurisdiction with the most asbestos filings nationally. Several Madison County firms (including Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., Simmons Hanly Conroy, and Maune Raichle) filed hundreds of asbestos cases in 2015 and appear on target to reach those numbers this year. Baltimore comes in as a distant second, with approximately 45 percent fewer cases than Madison County.
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Denied to Talc Defendant on Statute of Limitations, Burden of Proof, and Causation Issues
In this asbestos personal injury action the plaintiffs allege that Arlene Feinberg contracted mesothelioma because of exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc from defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Cashmere Bouquet. Colgate moved for summary judgment, arguing 1) the plaintiffs’ action is barred by the statute of limitations; 2) the plaintiffs failed to exclude other potential causes of Ms. Feinberg’s mesothelioma; 3) the plaintiffs failed to prove that Cashmere Bouquet caused the mesothelioma; and 4) that there is no evidence of general or specific causation. The plaintiffs opposed summary judgment, …
Continue Reading