The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for Exxon Mobil corporation in Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (No. 14-22-00756-CV), a premises liability case involving alleged exposure to olivine dust. The ruling highlights the importance of reliable expert testimony and strict adherence to procedural rules in toxic tort litigation.
We previously reported that the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Martin v. Goodrich Corp., upholding the constitutionality of a 2019 amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the “Act”).1 Since then, the Seventh Circuit has recognized the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling as an “unequivocal determination” of Illinois law and allowed a plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed as exempt from the Act’s exclusivity provisions.
In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).
On December 21, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York vetoed, for a third time, the Grieving Families Act (“Act”), a significant bipartisan legislative proposal in New York aimed at reforming the state’s wrongful death statute, which has remained largely unchanged since 1847. The Act’s provisions, including expanding recoverable damages, extending the statute of limitations, and broadening the definition of beneficiaries, have significant implications on civil law in New York, including asbestos litigation.
Overview of the Ban
On January 16, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a significant regulatory change by revoking the authorization for use of Red Dye No. 3 in food (including dietary supplements) and ingested drugs. As noted in a prior Husch Blackwell Legal Update, the FDA based its decision on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits the approval of additives found to induce cancer in humans or animals. The FDA recognizes that although the hormonal mechanism causing cancer in rats is not applicable to humans, Red Dye No. 3’s presence in the food and drug supply is sufficient to require a ban under the Delaney Clause. The FDA’s decision marks a pivotal shift in food and drug safety regulations.
Commissioner Peter A. Feldman has been named Acting Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, effective January 22, 2025.
Not everything stamped “privileged” is safe from prying eyes. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that interview notes compiled by a sorority’s leadership after a tragic incident were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. This decision serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers and their clients on how privilege works—and when it does not. See King v. Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority et al., 2025 PA Super 8, No. 55 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super 2025).
There have been recent growing concerns regarding the inhalation of crystalline silica dust in the California stone countertop industry, with attempts by the California State Legislature to enact regulations improving the occupational safety of workers fabricating stone slab products.1, 2 As this proposed legislation has developed, multiple studies have been conducted regarding safety measures that can be implemented for stone fabrication workers. Notably, some of those studies have revealed that effective methods to reduce occupational exposure to silica dust during fabrication exist and are feasible to implement by employers. While the research in the California stone countertop industry is still ongoing, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) has found that combining engineering controls and safer work practices would help greatly reduce the risk of harmful exposure to respirable silica dust.3, 4 Employers following this combination suggested by NIOSH in 2024 should make it feasible to safely work with stone slab products in California.
On January 24, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Martin v. Goodrich Corp., upholding the constitutionality of a 2019 amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the “Act”).1 This decision confirms that Plaintiffs can indeed file civil claims after the 25-year statute of repose period for asbestos claims under Workers’ Compensation has expired. This decision will have a far-reaching impact throughout toxic tort litigation as it allows employees to pursue civil claims against their employers even if their Workers’ Compensation claim would otherwise be barred.
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.