Asbestos

In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington overruled previous precedent regarding the deliberate intent to injure exception related to workers’ compensation immunity for employers, finding that an employee may sue its employer for latent disease injury if they can establish the employer had actual knowledge that latent diseases are “virtually certain” to occur. Cockrum v.
C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., 569 P.3d 287, 289 (Wash. 2025). In Cockrum, the Plaintiff is a living mesothelioma claimant (“Plaintiff”), who filed suit against his employer as a premises defendant (“Defendant”), alleging that they deliberately intended to injure him by exposing him to asbestos without proper warnings or protections while he worked as a laborer at their facility from 1967 to 1997. He further argued that Defendant had actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur from asbestos exposure but willfully disregarded that knowledge by continuously exposing him to asbestos without proper warning or protection. Specifically, he alleged exposure to asbestos while working in the environmental lab, where he tested samples for asbestos without any protective gear.

On March 18th, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ban of Chrysotile asbestos became the first rule to be finalized under the 2016 amendments to the nation’s chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Chrysotile is currently the only known form of asbestos being imported or used in manufacturing in the United States. Since the ban, there have been numerous appeals filed, all of which have since been consolidated and are pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, the EPA requested that the Fifth Circuit stay the litigation so that it may conduct a regulatory review mandated by a recently issued executive order. The stay was granted on February 14, 2025, and will pause the litigation for 120 days, allowing the EPA to review the ban in light of broader policy considerations.

As a sovereign entity, the United States government is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.1 However, its sovereign immunity may be waived under certain circumstances under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”), which is the exclusive remedy for state law torts committed by federal employees within the scope of their employment.2

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.

The Estate of Nicholas Barone trial in Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut before Judge William Clark concluded with a $15 million plaintiff’s verdict on 5/16/2024. The jury also awarded punitive damages, the exact amount to be determined by the trial judge at a later date. Upon oral argument and review of the parties’ briefs Judge Clark awarded plaintiffs $7,500,000 in punitive damages noting that Vanderbilt Minerals was a sophisticated defendant in position to know of the dangers associated with the mining operation and would not be financially ruined by such an award.

Observers of filing trends in personal injury mesothelioma matters alleging exposure to talc contaminated with asbestos have noted that the bankruptcy filing of a predominant defendant in those matters did little to slow the pace of such filings. Instead, as the filing of new matters continued, the number of defendants named in such filings substantially increased.

FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in a continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the talc testing and sample preparation requirements which will be established by the FDA under MoCRA.
FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in our continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the process for substantiating safety of cosmetic products.
MN outline

On May 20, 2023, the Minnesota legislature amended Minnesota’s Survival of Claims and Wrongful Death statutes. The amendments extend a potential-defendant’s liability by: (1) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to maintain claims on behalf of a deceased party, that historically could not be brought after death; and (2) allowing trustee-plaintiffs to potentially recover for all damages allegedly suffered by the decedent, not just economic harms stemming from and related to the death of the deceased party.

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.