| August 3, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Northern District of Illinois Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration in Take-Home Exposure Case By Jen Dlugosz In May 2016, we reported the Northern District of Illinois’ decision in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016). Following that ruling, plaintiff moved for |
…
The Environmental Working Group (“EWG”), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, issued a report on July 21, 2016 recommending the ten chemicals it thinks should be assessed first under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
| July 1, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Fifth District Ordered to Hear Ford Motor Company’s Appeal on Personal Jurisdiction Motion By Jenna Marie Stupar and Nicho Kelly In November, the Madison County Circuit Court denied a motion by Ford Motor Company to dismiss an asbestos case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Ford’s “substantial” business |
…
| June 2, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Southern District of Illinois Rules it Does Not Have Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant in Asbestos Case By Jenna Marie Stupar This March, the Southern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Defendant The William Powell Company (“Powell”) on its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Continue Reading] |
…
| May 2, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Northern District of Illinois Decision on Take-Home Exposure Liability has Limited Application By Lindsay McClure-Hartman The Northern District of Illinois in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016), recently granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that a product manufacturer |
…
| April 1, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Asbestos Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction By David Dean In February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of an out-of-state corporate defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction in an asbestos case, Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 14-4083 |
…
| March 1, 2016 |
| New Developments |
| Jury Awards $72 Million in Talc-related Cancer Case in St. Louis By Jen Dlugosz Last week, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of a victim who alleged that her ovarian cancer was caused by personal use talcum powder. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent used Johnson |
…
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.
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.
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.
