Search

Across the country, class-action lawsuit damages are being capped by corporations due to corporate restructuring via a unique clause in the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC). Indeed, large companies engaged in asbestos litigation (most significantly, Johnson & Johnson) are creating temporary companies in Texas, allocating to these companies all of their mass tort liabilities, and then having them seek bankruptcy protection, often in another state's venue after changing the company's domicile to a more corporate-friendly state. Such actions significantly cap the damages that plaintiffs can collect from lawsuits they have already won, as well as prevent future and current plaintiffs from having their day in court. Anywhere else in the country, these actions would constitutefraud. This Note is the first to bring attention to the use of Texas's divisive merger statute in mass tort cases and the impacts that has on plaintifts. It WiU propose specific tests and considerations for bankruptcy courts, and it calls for the Texas legislature to amend the relevant TBOC statutes to prevent Texas from further becoming a nationwide hotspot of fraud. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study the role of financial strength on product market competition by examining exogenous shocks to a firm’s liability structure arising from asbestos litigation. We find that exogenous increases (decreases) in asbestos liabilities are interpreted by the market as negative (positive) news for a firm’s close competitors. These reactions are magnified in events in which one asbestos-tainted firm goes bankrupt and other asbestos-tainted stocks fall on the news of the bankruptcy. For smaller competitors, market reactions are more pronounced in more concentrated industries. Our findings support the general hypothesis that increases in fixed liabilities lead to more aggressive product market interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The recent lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have raised the issue of what and when talcum powder manufacturers knew about the presence of asbestos in their products and what they did or did not do to protect the public. Low-level exposure to asbestos in talc is said to result in either mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson has claimed that there was "no detectable asbestos" in their products and that any possible incidental presence was too small to act as a carcinogen. But what exactly does "nondetected" mean? Here, we examine the historical development of the argument that asbestos in talcum powder was "nondetected." We use a unique set of historical documents from the early 1970s, when low-level pollution of talc with asbestos consumed the cosmetics industry. We trace the debate over the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to guarantee that talc was up to 99.99% free of chrysotile and 99.9% free of amphibole asbestos. Cosmetic talc powder manufacturers, through their trade association, pressed for a less stringent methodology and adopted the term "nondetected" rather than "asbestos-free" as a term of art. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the work of physician David Egilman providing expert analysis in trials and lawsuits against companies accused of harming public health. The author comments on his involvement in cases regarding the use of the carcinogen asbestos, the industrial chemical isocyanate, as well as health risks derived from metal hip replacements made by Johnson & Johnson, and the heart problems associated with anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx by Merck.

The article argues for laws that requires asbestos plaintiffs to pursue quick compensation from the trusts and allows trust-related exposures and compensation to be properly accounted for in asbestos-related personal injury cases.

The article examines the impact of the Court of Appeals' May 3, 2016 ruling on the case of In re Viking Pump, Inc., which holds that all sums allocation and vertical exhaustion applied to the asbestos-related losses, to the insurance industry. Topics discussed include the allocation law in New York before the ruling, allocation issues presented on the case of manufacturer, Viking Pump and the potential influence of the case on courts handling allocation issues under the laws of other states.

The article focuses on the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina in the Haskins v. 3M Co. court case. It mentions that the court excluded expert testimony in this case concerning asbestos. It presents views of physician Carlos Bedrossian on the malignant mesothelioma which is a result of repeated exposure to asbestos. It also mentions that John E. Haskins and James W. Chesher have also served in the U.S. Navy.

This Article discusses the current posture of "take-home" asbestos litigation and distinguishes the lack of merit of such cases from previous "take-home" asbestos cases. It further identifies sources other than asbestos that commonly cause mesothelioma that lead to "take-home" litigation. Moreover, this Article articulates the issues with the any exposure causation theory typically used by experts in asbestos litigation. This Article suggests the future of asbestos litigation largely hinges on the willingness of courts to address the discussed cases that have no proven merit in science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the benefits of using probabilistic analysis to forecast asbestos related disease expenses and discusses how probabilistic analyses can allow one to understand and quantify associated risk with estimating future events. Topics discussed include history of asbestos litigation, asbestos-related expenses, and use of probabilistic analysis for calculating asbestos-related expenses.

The continued proliferation of asbestos exposure lawsuits is one of the most significant developments in the history of United States civil litigation. It has been estimated that U.S. defendants, and their insurers, have spent over $70 billion in defending and resolving asbestos exposure bodily injury cases to date (Carroll, Hensler, Gross, Sloss, Schonlau, Abrahamse and Ashwood, 2005). Over 100 companies have filed bankruptcy as a result of asbestos exposure liability thus far (United States Government Accountability Office 2011). In the words of the United States Supreme Court, American asbestos litigation is an "elephantine mass." (Ortiz v. Fibreboard, 527 U.S. 815 (1999) at 821). In this paper, we examine this phenomenon in comprehensive fashion, analyzing its underpinnings and trends; its history and future; its characteristics and driving factors. We look at asbestos, the minerals, and their uses over time. We discuss asbestos-related disease, and how the United States reacted to it, both practically and legislatively. Most importantly, we study all aspects of asbestos exposure litigation in the United States, on legal, practical, scientific and financial levels. Asbestos litigation has persisted with remarkable perseverance and adaptability, surpassing almost every estimate and life span ever assigned to it. Readers of this paper will know just why this is and has been, and where it figures to go next. Readers will also get an informed look at the anatomy and workings of the asbestos exposure lawsuit, including relevant laws, settlement prototypes, insurance coverage and legal arguments. Simply put, this paper provides extremely thorough insight into almost every important facet of asbestos litigation in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response from Paolo Boffetta to the commentary on their paper on the causation of malignant mesothelioma published in the "American Journal of Industrial Medicine." Topics covered include errors and change in authorship of the document, effect of time since last exposure to asbestos and questions on the integrity of the document since the authors of the document are involved in asbestos litigation.

The article explores the subject of wear and tear group of exclusions of insurance under all-risk policy. It mentions several court cases including City of Burlington v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America and Cyclops Corp. v. Home Insurance Co. related to property insurance claims of insurance companies. It also mentions the decision of District Court of Connecticut in the case Yale University v. Cigna Insurance Co. ensuing loss exception due to asbestos contamination in buildings.

Copyright of La Medicina del Lavoro is the property of Mattioli 1885 SpA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Traditionally, disputes over injury compensation that were brought to court involved one or a few plaintiffs and defendants and were processed individually. The risk and expense of such litigation meant that most victims of legally cognizable injuries never came through the courthouse doors. The modern global economy, however, has vastly increased the potential for mass harms and losses, and modern mass media have created felicitous circumstances for mass claiming. Aggregated mass litigation blasts open the courthouse doors for individuals who might otherwise find them closed. Aggregation benefits some but disadvantages others. Class action rules attempt to mitigate these conflicts, but such procedures do not apply to aggregate non-class litigation. It is time for courts to adopt rules and practices that recognize the realities of such litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the life cycles of toxic torts associated with the asbestos litigation in the U.S. It cites the reference of Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. court case, from where the beginning of plaintiff success is traced in asbestos litigation cases in the U.S. Topics discussed include judicial response to the issues in the asbestos cases and causation in asbestos cases.

The large literature about liability for asbestos exposure has, for the most part, omitted gender. This omission matters. Men and women who sought redress in court fared very differently, and the two genders have shared unequally in the spoils of asbestos litigation and regulation. Here I ask: Cui bono? Cui pacat? In other words--English words--this Article investigates who has gained from and who has paid for the transfer of wealth put in motion by asbestos law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study related to how fairness and integrity in asbestos tort litigation can be weakened by lack of access to bankruptcy trust claims. It mentions about a trial judge from Delaware who developed potential for the unexpected or unforeseen. It further discusses the court case of Montgomery v. American Steel & Wire Corp. which received national attention due its ease with which a plaintiff can use two different inconsistent fact patterns.

The article discusses several lawsuits and claims associated with the usage of asbestos. It states that asbestos was a staple of the machine age and widely used in world war II for tanks and trucks, ships and planes. It further informs about asbestos litigation, the longest-running mass tort litigation in the U.S., involving more than 8,400 defendants and 730,000 claimants as of 2002. It also discusses a court case of Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.

The article offers information on several aspects of asbestos litigation in U.S. history. It states that nearly over 26,000 asbestos cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes under the multidistrict litigation statute in 1991. It also presents brief information on Judicial Conference Report which highlights several problems referenced including growing dockets in state and federal courts, delays in getting to trial, and long trials with complex issues.

The continued proliferation of asbestos exposure lawsuits is one of the most significant developments in the history of United States civil litigation. It has been estimated that U.S. defendants, and their insurers, have spent over $70 billion in defending and resolving asbestos exposure bodily injury cases to date (Carroll, Hensler, Gross, Sloss, Schonlau, Abrahamse and Ashwood, 2005). Over 100 companies have filed bankruptcy as a result of asbestos exposure liability thus far (United States Government Accountability Office 2011). In the words of the United States Supreme Court, American asbestos litigation is an "elephantine mass." (Ortiz v. Fibreboard, 527 U.S. 815 (1999) at 821). In this paper, we examine this phenomenon in comprehensive fashion, analyzing its underpinnings and trends; its history and future; its characteristics and driving factors. We look at asbestos, the minerals, and their uses over time. We discuss asbestos-related disease, and how the United States reacted to it, both practically and legislatively. Most importantly, we study all aspects of asbestos exposure litigation in the United States, on legal, practical, scientific and financial levels. Asbestos litigation has persisted with remarkable perseverance and adaptability, surpassing almost every estimate and life span ever assigned to it. Readers of this paper will know just why this is and has been, and where it figures to go next. Readers will also get an informed look at the anatomy and workings of the asbestos exposure lawsuit, including relevant laws, settlement prototypes, insurance coverage and legal arguments. Simply put, this paper provides extremely thorough insight into almost every important facet of asbestos litigation in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the interpretation of the U.S. Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) after the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp. and Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., related to locomotives and locomotive equipment preempts state law tort claims. It mentions that federal preemption regarding asbestos injury claims under consumer rights violations. It also mentions that effect of asbestos-related litigation on civil justice system of the U.S.

The article discusses the U.S Bankruptcy Court decision in the asbestos bankruptcy case In Re Garlock Sealing Technologies. The Court for the first time rejected the asbestos creditors' committee (ACC) and futures claims representative (FCR), and adopted the evaluation methodology of the debtor. It discusses the impact of the Garlock decision on the civil fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit filed under seal by Garlock.

The article focuses on the flaws present in the toxic torts litigation and the reforms required for its remedy. Topics discussed include litigation filed for the asbestos toxicity, requirement of the minimum asbestos exposure to the individual and the torts related to the toxicity of asbestos fibers. It also discusses the standards and rules made by the court for asbestos litigation.

As a Delaware Superior Court Judge formerly assigned to the asbestos docket, this author learned firsthand about the difficulties inherent in accounting for bankruptcy trust recoveries in asbestos personal injury lawsuits and the abusive practices facilitated by the lack of any coordination between the two compensation systems. The recent bankruptcy court decision in In re Garlock reveals just how widespread the tactics of strategic non-disclosure and trust submission timing have become. This Article explores the need for coordination between the bankruptcy trust and the civil tort systems and calls upon trial judges to institute procedures to identify the scope and real-world impact of fraudulent asbestos claiming upon the integrity of the judicial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some plaintiffs' lawyers are promoting the theory that manufacturers of products such as pumps and valves should be held liable for failure to warn individuals about the potential harms from exposure to asbestos in connected or replacement parts manufactured or sold by third-parties. This Article explores this issue and concludes that manufacturers should not be held liable for failure to warn about asbestos-containing external thermal insulation or replacement parts made by third-parties and used in conjunction with the manufacturer's product. This is the majoirty rule both inside and outside of the asbestos litigation context and is consistent with fundamental tort law principles and sound public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the pros n cons of asbestos litigation in Russia. Topics discussed include the laws regulating the health and environmental aspects of asbestos use, international laws for regulating asbestos industries, and the raised litigation costs. It further discusses the burden of proof in asbestos litigation along with the awards and compensation made for litigation.

The article focuses on the bankruptcy trust system as part of the overall framework for asbestos personal injury compensation. It discusses a brief historical overview of the establishment of the bankruptcy trust, the growing significance of trust operations and payments in the tort system along with the linkages across solvent and bankrupt defendants. Other topics include the Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency (FACT) act of 2013 and arguments advanced in favor of the act.

The article discusses the development of asbestos product liability Multidistrict Litigation Courts (MDL) in the federal courts. Topics discussed include impact of the asbestos litigation issues on the medical and legal system, implementation of a new paradigm in the litigation by the MDL-875 and largest running active MDL in the federal courts. It suggests that the asbestos paradigm developed in MDL-875 could well inform the resolution of future mass tort litigation in the federal courts.

The article discusses the asbestos litigation court case in which a plaintiff seeks to hold a defendant responsible for an asbestos-related injury that was largely someone else's fault. Topics discussed include an overview of asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers' pursuit of what Richard "Dickie" Scruggs called "solvent bystanders," California Supreme Court case Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories dealing with market share liability and New York federal court case dealing with enterprise liability.

Since the 1970s, litigation concerning the dangers of asbestos in the workplace has transformed from a few workers' compensation claims to hundreds of thousands of lawsuits against companies in nearly every industry. While the typical plaintiff in these claims is an employee injured while handling asbestos at the worksite, a new class of "peripheral plaintiffs" has recently emerged. These plaintiffs consist of family members who are exposed to asbestos after inhaling the dust that saturates an employee's person and clothing. The family members then bring claims against the employers and the owners of the premises claiming that they were negligent in allowing the workers to carry asbestos home when the danger of asbestos was well known. The highest courts of six states stand divided on whether an employer or premises owner owes a duty to these third-party plaintiffs to protect them from asbestos-related harm. Two states have relied heavily on the foreseeability of the harm to hold that landowners and employers do owe a duty to third-party plaintiffs. On the other hand, four states have focused on a range of factors, like the lack of a relationship between the parties and the need to constrain asbestos litigation, to hold that landowners and employers do not owe a duty to third-party plaintiffs. This Note examines the interstate conflict and concludes that all six courts have engaged in an unclear and unnecessarily fact-specific analysis of duty. It argues that the Third Restatement's method of determining duty represents a clearer approach, because it sends factual questions to the jury and encourages courts to take "no duty" decisions more seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]