The statute of limitations on asbestos claims was recently reevaluated by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Palmer v. Walker Jamal Company, the court reinforces that the clock begins when the plaintiff learns they have an asbestos-related disease, rather than when they identify a specific product as a potential cause.
Manufacturers Liable for Third Party Replacement Parts Says NJ Supreme Court
In June, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a 2018 Appellate Division ruling holding that manufacturers and distributors can be held strictly liable for damages caused by third party replacement parts containing asbestos.
Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Asserted By Minnesota Court of Appeals
Personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation was asserted by The Minnesota Court of Appeals in a recent asbestos case. The court found that the company’s former asbestos-tile factory in the state provided sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction.
Pending Amendment to Rule 30(b)(6) Includes Meet and Confer Obligation
A pending amendment to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure obligates parties to “meet and confer” regarding subject matters for examination. Adopted and submitted to Congress by the U.S. Supreme Court in April, this good faith conferral serves to clarify matters for examination and facilitates collaborative efforts. If Congress does not reject, modify, or defer the amendment by December 1, it will become effective immediately.
Toxic Tort Monitor: Proximate Cause Jury Instruction Further Clarified by Washington Appellate Court
Proximate cause jury instruction was further clarified by a Washington appellate court when the court reversed the asbestos defense verdict in Clevenger v. John Crane, Inc. In the case, plaintiff Era Clevenger alleged that her deceased husband’s forty-year history of occupational exposure to asbestos (in the Navy, as a city water department mechanic, and as a pipefitter) resulted in his death.
Toxic Tort Monitor: Affidavits of Deceased Plaintiff Admitted Under Residual Exception to Hearsay
In July, a Delaware Superior Court judge ordered affidavits of a deceased plaintiff admitted under the residual exception to hearsay, finding that the affidavits were sufficiently trustworthy for purposes of admissibility under D.R.E. 807.
Remote Court Proceedings Will Continue in Cook County
Remote court proceedings will continue in Cook County due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In July, Judge James Flannery of the Law Division of the Cook County Circuit Court signed General Administrative Order 20-6, providing guidance on the re-opening of Cook County courts and the extension of remote court proceedings. To safeguard the health of jurors, court employees and the public, all Law Division operations will resume via remote access.
Toxic Tort Monitor: Louisiana Upholds Reduction of a Large Toxic Tort Verdict
In April, the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana upheld the reduction of a large toxic tort verdict in James Gaddy, et al. v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., et al., No. CV 19-12926. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the remitted verdict which reduced the jury’s initial award of general damages from $7.5 million to $3 million.
Pitfalls of Remote Depositions
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts and litigants are reinventing civil litigation – holding hearings on Zoom or Skype, using emails and conference calls to communicate status, and taking remote depositions. That said, “virtual discovery” is not new. Since 1993, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly authorized taking depositions by remote electronic means. States including Ohio, Massachusetts and Texas have followed suit. See, e.g., Ohio R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); Mass. R. Civ. P. 29; Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.1
Toxic Tort Monitor: Venue Statute’s Savings Clause Clarified by St. Louis City Order
St. Louis City Judge Michael K. Mullen recently entered an important order interpreting Missouri’s 2019 legislation governing joinder and venue law. See Order, Johnson v. Bayer Corporation, et al., 1622-CC01049-01 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis Cty. May 5, 2020) (Johnson). Put simply, St. Louis City’s automatically-generated trial docket dates (the “rolling docket”) do not satisfy the eligibility requirement of a having a “trial date” on or before August 28, 2019 within the savings clause.