In Perkins v. United States, Plaintiff Tristan Perkins sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for her mother Geraldine Perkins’ (“Decedent”) alleged wrongful death due to asbestos exposure. Alleging “take home” asbestos exposure, Plaintiff claimed Decedent was exposed to asbestos through being around her husband and performing his laundry. Mr. Perkins worked as a machinist’s mate for the U.S. Navy at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1968 – 1974.
Released yearly in December, the American Tort Reform (ATR) Foundation publishes its annual “Judicial Hellhole” rankings for the upcoming year. The Hellholes represent the worst of the worst jurisdictions to defend tort lawsuits in the United States. The 2024-2025 Judicial Hellhole rankings crown a new #1 Judicial Hellhole (thanks in large part to a 10-figure nuclear verdict that sealed the crown) and also welcome a new member (King County, Washington) to the ranks.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Schaffner v. Monsanto, No. 22-3075 (3rd Cir. 2024), recently held that a state-law duty to warn claim was expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To reach the conclusion, the 3rd Circuit diverged from the 9th and 11th Circuits, thus creating a split between circuits and providing an opportunity for the United States Supreme Court to step in and make a definitive ruling on FIFRA preemption. If the Supreme Court were to adopt the 3rd Circuit’s reasoning, FIFRA would preempt any state-law duty to warn claims that were inconsistent with EPA’s approved label for products containing glyphosate.
In 1968, the Multidistrict Litigation Act provided the framework for multidistrict litigation (MDL); where civil actions involve “one or more common questions of fact . . . pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).
Michigan Grapples With Airport Authority Over Application of Federal Officer Removal Statute in PFAS Litigation
For the last several months, the Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (Airport) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has been locked in an appellate battle with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy and State Attorney General Dana Nessel (collectively, Michigan) over whether the Airport may remove Michigan’s lawsuit over the Airport’s use of PFAS[1]-containing firefighting foam based on the federal officer removal doctrine.
The Middle District of Pennsylvania’s opinion in Gorton v. Warren Pumps, LLC supported the government contractor defense and set forth a road map for defendants to follow to win summary judgment. The court, relying on the Supreme Court case, Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, and applying admiralty law, held the government contractor defense was applicable to Plaintiff’s claims for product liability, breach of implied warranty, and negligence. In Groton, Defendant Warren Pumps moved for summary judgment asserting the government contractor defense. The court, after analyzing the record and standards for the defense, granted summary judgment in Warren Pumps’ favor.
In a move that further cements Louisiana’s place as the 7th Ranked Judicial Hell Hole of 2023, the Court of Appeals of Louisiana affirmed a second 8-figure verdict of 2023 for a mesothelioma personal injury case in Strauder v. Shell Oil Co., 2023 WL 2009251 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/15/23). The first affirmation came in Pete v. Boland Marine, 2023 WL 110608 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/5/23). Included within the $10.4 million total verdict in Strauder was a $2.75 million award to each of Decedent’s two adult children for wrongful death damages.
The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATR) released its 2022-2023 Judicial Hellhole report. In this report, the ATR ranks the eight most dangerous jurisdictions for corporate defendants and their defense attorneys. This year the hellhole ranks had a significant shake up.
Last year, we highlighted Iowa’s groundbreaking law to end over-naming of defendants in asbestos and silica litigation. Now, just a year later, three more states have followed suit: North Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia. All three states enacted their own versions of legislation aiming to reduce and prevent the over-naming of defendants in asbestos cases. While all three of the bills share similarities, North Dakota’s bill is the most expansive of the three.
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 issue of whether, under Tennessee law, equipment defendants “had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing materials manufactured and sold by others.” The Court held that, under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA), Tenn. Code Ann. §29-28-101 through 108, the equipment defendants did not have a duty to warn end users about the post-sale incorporation of asbestos containing products manufactured by third parties.