Toxic Tort Monitor

February 12, 2018 | Editor: Jen Dlugosz | Assistant Editors: Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden
New Developments
Which Came First: Subject Matter or Personal Jurisdiction?
By Mary Kate Mullen

Two recent Eastern District of Missouri cases examined the same issue, yet the court reached opposite results. In Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson and Jinright v. Johnson & Johnson, the court considered whether subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction should be decided first. [Continue Reading]

Fifth Circuit Sets Bright Line Rule for Timing Requirement Under Federal Officer Removal Statute
By Tierra Jones

In January 2018, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s remand of an asbestos case to state court for being untimely, based on a federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C § 1442 (“Statute”). The Court of Appeals found that the Statute allows for removal of a case within 30 days after the date a defendant received the transcript of an oral deposition providing a basis for removal, as opposed to the date on which the relevant deposition testimony was taken. [Continue Reading]

Notable Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Developments
By Theresa Mullineaux

In December, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the Fair Share Act applies to asbestos litigation, meaning that defendants are only responsible for the percent they are found liable. Prior to the enactment of the Fair Share Act, a defendant found liable could be on the hook for the entire verdict. [Continue Reading]

Upcoming Events
DRI – Toxic Torts and Environmental Law
March 1-2, 2018
Nashville, TN

Several of our toxic tort litigators are attending this DRI seminar; we hope to see you there!

Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
January 2018

Read the full Toxic Tort Monitor Archive

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Toxic Tort Litigation Practice

Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]

Toxic Tort Monitor

January 17, 2018
New Developments
A Review of 2017 Personal Jurisdiction Decisions
By Taylor Concannon

In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in cases such as BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California continued the trend that began in Goodyear and Daimler and reaffirmed its limits on personal jurisdiction for corporate defendants. [Continue Reading]

Summary of 2017 Talc Verdicts
By Natalie Holden

After several multi-million dollar verdicts in talc and ovarian cancer trials in 2016, 2017 proved to be a more interesting year, with some plaintiff verdicts and some defense verdicts. There are currently thousands of talc related claims pending across the United States. The defendants in this litigation maintain that the science does not support the claims that personal care powder products cause ovarian cancer. [Continue Reading]

Missouri Court of Appeals Reverses Defense Verdict Finding Trial Court’s Allowance of Four Defense Experts as Cumulative and an Abuse of Discretion
By Natalie Holden and Jen Dlugosz

In Shallow v. Follwell, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District, Division Four, held that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the “unfairly cumulative and prejudicial repetition of expert opinions from [defense] expert witnesses.” [Continue Reading]

Texas Court of Appeals Denies Rehearing in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Rogers
By Joe Ellis, Anne McLeod and Natalie Holden

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Rogers, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued an important decision regarding the calculation of exemplary damages awarded under the Texas statute governing the exemplary damages cap to calculate a judgment amount in the case of an employer defendant found grossly negligent where the deceased employee claimed exposure to asbestos. [Continue Reading]

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Toxic Tort Litigation Practice

Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]

Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
Read our Toxic Tort Monitor Archive

Toxic Tort Monitor

October 5, 2016
New Developments
Illinois Supreme Court finds Six Person Jury Demand Unconstitutional
By Jen Dlugosz

On June 1, 2015, Public Act 1132 (the “Act”) became effective. The Act reduced the size of civil juries in Illinois to 6 persons from 12 persons, thus litigants demanding a jury after June 1, 2015 could no longer demand a 12-person jury. The Act also increased the amount paid per day to jurors. Last month, the Illinois Supreme Court found the Act unconstitutional. [Continue Reading]

Arizona Court of Appeals Rejects Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Claim
By David Dean

An Arizona court of appeals recently held that no duty was owed to a family member who contracted mesothelioma due to alleged take-home exposure. In Quiroz v. Alcoa, Inc., et al., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0083 (2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether an employer owes a duty of care to the family member of an employee who contracts mesothelioma due to asbestos brought home on the employee’s work clothing. Noting that the question was a matter of first impression in Arizona, the Court held that no duty was owed, and affirmed summary judgment for the employer. [Continue Reading]

Third Circuit Finds Corporate Defendants in Asbestos Lawsuit Waived Personal Jurisdiction Defense
By Jenna Marie Stupar

On August 18, the Third Circuit reversed a ruling in the District Court of Pennsylvania that dismissed an asbestos suit against corporate defendants the Matson Navigation Company, Inc. (“Matson”) and American President Line, Ltd. (“American”) for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Continue Reading]

Upcoming Events
DRI – Asbestos Medicine
November 10-11, 2016
New Orleans, LA

Mark Zellmer will be speaking at this DRI seminar; we hope to see you there!

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
September 2016

Toxic Tort Monitor

September 2, 2016
New Developments
Toward a Defense of Mesothelioma Cases on Causation: Low Doses and Genetics
By Mark Zellmer

Today’s defendants in asbestos litigation often face plaintiffs’ claims that they have contracted mesothelioma from exposure to low or even doubtful doses of asbestos. If the mesothelioma looks to be spontaneous (idiopathic) or the result of an exposure so low that it will not cause the disease or the mesothelioma, genetics may provide the alternate explanation to satisfy the jury about why plaintiff or decedent has mesothelioma. [Continue Reading]

California Supreme Court Exercises Personal Jurisdiction Over Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
By Jen Dlugosz

This week the California Supreme Court ruled that Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”) is subject to personal jurisdiction of the California courts on the basis of specific jurisdiction. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson), S221038, slip op. (Cal. Aug. 29, 2016).  This decision upheld the Court of Appeals decision that found that BMS’s activities in California were “insufficient to subject it to general jurisdiction in the state but that, given the nature of the action and BMS’s activities in California,” California courts may properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over BMS in this matter. [Continue Reading]

Editor of the Month
Mark Zellmer is a Mark ZellmerHusch Blackwell partner and handles asbestos litigation throughout the nation and acts as national counsel for various firm clients. Over the last several years, he has concentrated much of his litigation work, publishing and speaking on the subjects of the causation and epidemiology of mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. He has published and spoken extensively on the asbestos litigation, including concepts of asbestos medicine, the interplay of workers’ compensation and asbestos litigation in civil courts, application of OSHA to asbestos litigation and numerous other topics.
Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Upcoming Events
DRI – Asbestos Medicine
November 10-11, 2016
New Orleans, LA

Mark Zellmer will be speaking at this DRI seminar; we hope to see you there!

Toxic Tort Monitor

August 3, 2016
New Developments
Northern District of Illinois Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration in Take-Home Exposure Case
By Jen Dlugosz

In May 2016, we reported the Northern District of Illinois’ decision in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016). Following that ruling, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling under FRCP 54(b). This summer, the court issued its decision denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and granting Rule 12(c) motions to dismiss brought by six other defendants on the basis of the court’s prior ruling. [Continue Reading]

Take-Home Toxic Tort Cases: New Jersey Supreme Court Explains Duty of Care
By Jenna Marie Stupar and Madison Mapes

On July 6, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion holding that, in certain cases, the duty of care in take-home exposure cases could be expanded to plaintiffs beyond spouses of employees working with toxins in Schwartz v. Accartus Corporation.  The Court found that an employer’s scope of duty of care in such cases requires a fact specific analysis, including assessing the risk and foreseeability of injury.  The Court did not definitively decide whether the Schwartz plaintiff was owed a duty of care.  Instead, the Court provided that judges must weigh numerous factors including foreseeability, fairness, and predictability in making a duty of care determination.[Continue Reading]

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
July 2016

Toxic Tort Monitor

July 1, 2016
New Developments
Fifth District Ordered to Hear Ford Motor Company’s Appeal on Personal Jurisdiction Motion
By Jenna Marie Stupar and Nicho Kelly

In November, the Madison County Circuit Court denied a motion by Ford Motor Company to dismiss an asbestos case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Ford’s “substantial” business activities were such that it was at home in Illinois and subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Jeffs v. Anco Insulations, Inc. et al, No. 15-L-533 (Cir. Ct. Mad. Co. 2015).  Last month, the Illinois Supreme Court granted Ford’s motion for a supervisory order with the Illinois Supreme Court under Rule 383, and ordered the Fifth District to hear the appeal. [Continue Reading]

Spring 2016 Asbestos Verdict Summary 
By Jen Dlugosz

In the spring of 2016, there were several significant asbestos verdicts nationwide.  [Continue Reading]

Husch Blackwell Expands into Wisconsin; Combination Adds Depth and Capabilities to Industry-Focused Firm

Husch Blackwell and Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. (WHD), a leading Wisconsin business and litigation law firm, will combine effective July 15, 2016. The move strengthens both firms’ commitment to providing industry knowledge and experience to clients. The combined firm will retain the Husch Blackwell name and will continue to operate in all markets where both firms currently have offices. With the addition of WHD’s offices in Milwaukee, Madison and Waukesha County, Wis., as well as Chicago, the combined firm will have more than 700 attorneys and offices in 19 cities. Husch Blackwell and WHD had combined annual revenues of approximately $346 million in 2015, placing the firm among the Am Law 100, The American Lawyer’s annual ranking of the nation’s 100 top-grossing law firms.

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
June 2016

Toxic Tort Monitor

June 2, 2016
New Developments
Southern District of Illinois Rules it Does Not Have Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant in Asbestos Case
By Jenna Marie Stupar

This March, the Southern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Defendant The William Powell Company (“Powell”) on its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Continue Reading]

Missouri Borrowing Statute: Applying Illinois’ Two-Year Statute of Limitations and Sinking Time-Barred Claims on Their Voyage across the Mississippi River 
By Eric Carlson

In the Wolfe v. Armstrong International, Inc. case pending in Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, various defendants obtained dismissal by arguing their wrongful death claims brought in Missouri were governed by the Illinois Wrongful Death Act and that the Missouri borrowing statute required application of Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations, rather than Missouri’s three-year statute of limitations. [Continue Reading]

Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
May 2016

 

Toxic Tort Monitor

May 2, 2016
New Developments
Northern District of Illinois Decision on Take-Home Exposure Liability has Limited Application
By Lindsay McClure-Hartman

The Northern District of Illinois in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016), recently granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that a product manufacturer does not owe a duty to a plaintiff in a take-home exposure case. [Continue Reading]

Timing is Everything: Defendant Union Carbide’s Statute of Limitations Argument Rejected in Cook County Asbestos Case
By Jenna Marie Stupar

On February 18, 2016, a Cook County trial court denied Defendant Union Carbide Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Contreras v. Georgia Pacific et al. (No 13 L 6487). The court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to when the Statute of Limitations began to run and refused to grant the motion. [Continue Reading]

Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Appointment of a Registered Agent Alone is Insufficient For Exercise of General Jurisdiction of a Foreign Corporation
By Jen Dlugosz

On April 18, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court held that registration of a corporation under the Delaware registration statutes does not subject a corporation to personal jurisdiction for any cause of action in the state. [Continue Reading]

April 2016 Asbestos Verdicts Summary
By Jen Dlugosz

[Read the Verdicts Summary]

Editor of the Month
Managing the day-to-day toxic tort litigation for several manufacturing Lindsay McClure-Hartmanclients, Lindsay McClure-Hartman specializes in defending asbestos exposure claims against premises owners and solvent exposure claims against petrochemical manufacturers. She routinely deposes exposure witnesses, develops trial strategies and tactics and advises clients regarding dose, causation and medical diagnosis issues. As part of this practice, Lindsay advises clients on minimizing litigation spend and risk in some of the most dangerous venues for corporate defendants, including California, Illinois, Missouri, New York and West Virginia.
Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
April 2016

Toxic Tort Monitor

April 1, 2016
New Developments
Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Asbestos Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
By David Dean

In February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of an out-of-state corporate defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction in an asbestos case, Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 14-4083 (2nd Cir. Feb. 28, 2016). In finding that the Connecticut District Court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant Lockheed Martin Corp., the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that Lockheed’s registration to do business in Connecticut constituted consent to jurisdiction. [Continue Reading]

Indiana Supreme Court Tackles Statute of Repose in Asbestos Litigation
By Jenna Marie Stupar

This March, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Section 2 of its Statute of Repose (Ind. Code § 34-20-3-1) was unconstitutional as applied to asbestos claims. The Court held the statutory provisions at issue violated the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Indiana Constitution. Thus, it is no longer a viable defense for defendants in these cases. [Continue Reading]

A Look at Illinois Coverage Law in Asbestos Cases
By Eric Krauss

The repeated, continuous, or periodic nature of workplace asbestos exposure can be a vexing problem for insurance coverage actions, inter-insurer disputes, and insurance recovery litigation. The fundamental insurance concept of an occurrence (simplistically, an “accident”) is not easy to apply to asbestos litigation facts. [Continue Reading]

Editor of the Month
David Dean represents clients in the David Deanmanufacturing, chemical and petrochemical industries in a range of litigation matters, including toxic tort, product liability and breach of contract. As a member of several client teams, he assists with the development of defense strategies, handles discovery and fact investigation, helps to prepare cases for trial, attends and takes depositions and has motion practice experience.
Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Toxic Tort Monitor Archive
March 2016

Toxic Tort Monitor

March 1, 2016
New Developments
Jury Awards $72 Million in Talc-related Cancer Case in St. Louis
By Jen Dlugosz

Last week, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of a victim who alleged that her ovarian cancer was caused by personal use talcum powder. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and Shower to Shower body powder for feminine hygiene for more than 35 years. [Continue Reading]

District Court in Wisconsin Rules State’s Statute of Repose Does Not Bar Asbestos Claims in Lawsuit
By Jenna Marie Stupar

The Eastern District of Wisconsin started 2016 off with a decision sure to impact the asbestos litigation world. In Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau et al., the District Court ruled that Wisconsin’s Statute of Repose did not foreclose the plaintiff from bringing asbestos-related claims against the defendants and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Case No. 13-C-1456 (Jan. 6, 2016, E.D. Wis). [Continue Reading]

Notable Take-Home Asbestos Exposure Developments
By Lindsay McClure-Hartman

In the later-half of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, there have been some notable state court decisions on the issues of product and premises liability for secondary or “take-home” exposure to asbestos. Depending on the state, different tests for determining liability are applied, however, the recent decisions discussed below help shed light on how state courts are currently thinking about take-home asbestos exposure cases. [Continue Reading]

Trio of Personal Jurisdiction Motions Denied in Saint Louis City and Madison County
By David D. Dean

In 2015, three foreign corporation asbestos defendants saw their attempts to obtain dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction denied by circuit court judges in Saint Louis City, Missouri, and Madison County, Illinois. [Continue Reading]

Editor of the Month
Jen Dlugosz is a Jen Dlugosztoxic tort and product liability litigator in the firm’s Chicago office. She manages day-to-day operations of cases, working closely with clients and co-counsel to develop and implement overall defense strategies. Jen has served as national coordinating counsel for toxic tort claims and defended clients in repetitive litigation and pre-litigation claims stemming from product liability issues and recalls.
Connect with us: Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn
Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation
Asbestos Practice
Companies face increasingly well‐coordinated attacks in jurisdictions across the country. These assaults are becoming more complex and costly as plaintiffs’ counsel pursue novel theories and claims to keep asbestos litigation thriving. Husch Blackwell’s team has experience in numerous jurisdictions throughout 37 states. Our attorneys can help you navigate the intricate web of plaintiffs’ firms, changing laws, evolving science and anti-defendant courts. [More information]
Upcoming Events
DRI – Toxic Torts and Environmental Law
March 17-18, 2016
New Orleans, LASeveral of our toxic tort litigators are attending this DRI seminar; we hope to see you there!