Asbestos Defendants Win Insurance Coverage Case

While plaintiff's lawyers love to rail against corporate America, the actual entities that pay most of the settlements and verdicts in asbestos cases are the insurance companies that insure corporate America. So, there's been quite a bit of litigation between asbestos defendants and their insurance companies on just how much coverage is available.

One of the disputes is the meaning of the word "occurrence" in insurance policies. Many policies will limit the amount of coverage per "occurrence". If a corporate entity manufactured asbestos-containing products, they could get sued quite a few times. The issue in Wisconsin was whether an occurrence happens each time a company got sued by a new plaintiff or if the occurrence was the decision to use asbestos in their product and all the subsequent lawsuits derive from that one decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that each time a plaintiff sues is a separate occurrence and thus, the insurance company is on the hook a bit longer than it wanted.

Plastics Eng'g. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Still Filing in Madison County

This article looks into why filings in Madison County have gone up recently. As other states have passed tort reform, it would seem a no-brainer to have cases for out of state plaintiff's moved out of Madison County. The only real theory advanced was the presence of Illinois-based defendant John Crane. But, despite the fact that Madison County has improved its reputation as a plaintiff friendly venue, at the end of the day, it still is a plaintiff friendly venue.

Concord family wins $1.3 million in asbestos death lawsuit

Plaintiff's side wins a few cases in San Francisco. All of the plaintiff's were pipe fitters that worked at industrial sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and the defendant was an insulation contractor.

Ohio Medical Criteria Applies Retroactively (again)

NEAL v. A-BEST PRODS. CO. holds that the medical criteria to file an asbestos lawsuit (RC 2307.91, et. seq.) may apply retroactively without violating the Ohio state constitution's prohibition against retroactive laws. Not the first time an appellate court in Ohio has held this but also not the first time an Ohio trial court struck it down as violating the retroactivity rule.

So, you actually have to be sick to file in Ohio.

Doctor with cancer wins $24.2M jury award

A doctor nails Bendix with Florida's largest verdict. Just goes to show juries don't buy the chrysotile defense to mesothelioma. This one also didn't buy the no substantial exposure to brake work either. Of course, defense lawyers rarely send press releases when they get defense verdict and the newspapers don't report defense verdicts as often so who knows what the real batting average is for these defenses.

Anti-asbestos drug could prevent harmful effects

There may be a treatment to prevent an asbestos illness. It appears asbestosis creates a protein similar to the one related to gout. The theory is that a treatment for gout that inhibits that protein may work to protect folks from asbestosis. The proposed treatment won't cure an asbestos-related illness but might might prevent someone exposed from getting ill. As with many new drugs, the jury's still out but it might be worth asking about if you worked around asbestos containing materials.

Identifying an Asbestos-Containing Product for Summary Judgment

Since most instances of asbestos exposure occurred many years ago, it's almost impossible to test the actual material a plaintiff was exposed to in order to determine if it had asbestos. Thus, it falls to the plaintiff's own testimony and those of co-workers. So, to what extent can a lay witness testify that a product he saw actually had asbestos?

KOERPER v. BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., out of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas limits how much a witness in the construction trade can do just that. Here, a plumber testified he believed the pipe insulation he encountered contained asbestos because of the age, appearance and application. However, since he wasn't trained to spot asbestos-containing insulation, that wasn't good enough to raise a triable issue to survive a summary judgment.

Suffice to say, if the plaintiff testified about plumbing products, it probably would have been admissible and survived summary judgment. I suspect it would be simple to retain an expert to review such testimony and render an opinion sufficient to survive a speculation objection at least for summary judgment.