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] |
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 |