On October 24, 2025, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery denied motions to dismiss in a high-profile challenge to asbestos trust data-retention policies, allowing asbestos defendants’ claims to proceed past the pleading stage.
In a recent case filed in Portland, OR, a 71-year-old man brought various claims against numerous defendants related to products liability, negligence, and failure to warn associated with asbestos-containing products after being diagnosed with biphasic pleural mesothelioma in 2023. The case, Richard D. Long v. 3M Company, et al., was pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. The initial trial ended in a mistrial after four days of jury deliberation. The subsequent trial resulted in the Portland jury awarding $34,200,000 to the plaintiff on
September 5, 2025.
It is extremely rare for a civil case filed in New York State to be reviewed by its highest court—the New York Court of Appeals. In 2023, 1,030,781 civil cases were filed in New York State trial courts; however, only 93 appeals were decided by the Court of Appeals.1 This represents just 0.009% of civil cases filed that year. Due to a recent decision from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (“Fourth Department”), the Court of Appeals may soon address a question of law regarding the state’s causation standard in asbestos cases.2
BAP1 as Independent Cause
Recent reviews of genetic research continue to challenge long-held assumptions about the causes of malignant mesothelioma. While plaintiffs’ attorneys often cite to asbestos exposure as the only cause of mesothelioma, a January 2025 publication in Scientific Reports led by Dahlia Nielsen includes a novel approach to the subject and provides further evidence that certain inherited genetic mutations—most notably in the BAP1 gene—can independently cause mesothelioma, even in the absence of asbestos exposure.1 The results of Nielsen’s Bayesian analysis and findings, together with a brand new paper2 by Dr. Michele Carbone’s group (which may find its way into a future blog), may alter the landscape of asbestos litigation and influence the strategies used by both plaintiffs and defendants.
In June 2025, a Suffolk County, Massachusetts jury delivered an $8 million verdict in Janice Paluzzi v. Johnson & Johnson (21-2109). The jury allocated $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering.
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.
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.
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.
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.