Toxic Torts

This week, the Illinois Supreme Court enforced the exclusive remedy provisions of the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act and the Worker’s Occupational Disease Act (“the Statutes”) for latent diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside the 25-year limit of the statute of repose. The Court’s 4-2 decision in Folta v. Ferro Engineering, No. 118070 (Ill. Sup. Ct.) means plaintiffs can no longer successfully argue that the long latency period for mesothelioma renders their asbestos claims “non-compensable” as to their employers. Thus, their claims no longer meet that exception of the Statutes’ exclusive remedy bar.

Much has been written in recent years about changes to the litigation landscape in Texas.  Clearly, the significant tort reform passed in this state, particularly the sweeping reforms in 2003, have greatly impacted the way litigation is pursued, and how cases are tried, in Texas.  Overall, filings in mass tort, toxic tort, product liability and catastrophic injury claims are well down from the mid-1990’s when torts, as much as oil, ruled the Lone Star State.

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” ran a lengthy piece reported by Anderson Cooper regarding accusations that Lumber Liquidators imported laminated flooring products that did not meet the standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for levels of formaldehyde. The focus of the story was on Lumber Liquidators, but the issue is likely to affect almost every importer of flooring and other wood products from China.

During the segment, Cooper referenced various lawsuits that are pending against Lumber Liquidators alleging that the company failed to meet CARB standards in California for formaldehyde. Cooper interviewed the CEO of Lumber Liquidators, Robert Lynch. Lynch said the company has a good system in place and checks carefully to make sure that CARB standards are met.

After making this statement, Lynch was shown a video interview of the plant manager of a Chinese plant that manufactures products for Lumber Liquidators. In the video, the plant manager plainly states that the flooring did not meet CARB standards. The journalist narrating the video adds that visits made to two other plants that manufacture flooring for the company revealed that the company’s flooring failed to meet the standards.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order in Tooey v. Ak Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa., 2013) that had major implications for toxic tort litigation in the state.  Plaintiff John Tooey allegedly worked for Ferro Engineering as an industrial salesman of asbestos products from 1964 to 1982.  In 2007, Mr. Tooey developed mesothelioma; he passed away the following year.  The Tooey court considered whether the manifestation of an occupational disease outside of a 300-week period set forth by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act removed a claim from the protection of the Act, such that the exclusivity provision of the Act did not apply.  The court concluded that claims for occupational diseases with long latency periods – over 300 weeks – do not fall within the purview of the Act and, therefore, the exclusivity provision is inapplicable.

Adam Miller is presenting “Eat, Drink, but Be Wary: Plaintiffs’ New Attack on Chemicals in the Food Chain” today at the DRI Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar. Plaintiffs allege a link between chemicals in food and various diseases. Their theories create unprecedented burdens on product manufacturers, essentially making them insurers of their products from…

Recently in Asbestos Columns, published by Harris Martin, I authored an article on the causation of lung cancer asking how much does asbestos really contribute.  Courts that look at the issue of causation in asbestos cases are now less likely to allow testimony from plaintiff’s experts that any exposure above background will substantially contribute to cause an asbestos related disease and more likely to require a plaintiff to prove that the alleged exposure attributable to a defendant was sufficient to cause his disease.

Talc, the mineral from which talcum powder is made, is rather innocuous by itself. However, because its chemical makeup and geologic formation is similar to tremolite, a form of asbestos, deposits of the two substances often are located near each other.  This proximity creates the possibility for contamination of the talc, and plaintiff’s attorneys are taking advantage of that possibility.

A trend has emerged across the country whereby more courts are rejecting the every exposure theory in asbestos litigation.  This theory, also referred to the single fiber theory, is used by plaintiffs in asbestos litigation to argue that a single fiber is substantially causative of asbestos-related diseases.