Toxic Tort

ASBESTOS PLAINTIFF EXPERTS CAN’T TESTIFY EVERY EXPOSURE IS A CUMULATIVE CAUSE OF CANCER

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently decided that a major type of testimony traditionally used by asbestos plaintiff’s medical experts to attribute a cancer’s causation to each and any exposure to asbestos (no matter how long or intense) is unavailable…
Business Law

HAS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT PUT AN END TO LAWSUIT TOURISM ONCE AND FOR ALL? OR “3 STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT [OF THIS JURISDICTION]”

A General Counsel knows the situation all too well. He or she receives word that the Company has been named as part of a multi-plaintiff case in a plaintiff friendly jurisdiction which has nothing to do with the underlying facts, and most of the plaintiffs…
Trademark Law

NO SAFE SPACE FROM OFFENSIVE TRADEMARKS! SUPREME COURT RULES LAW PROHIBITING REGISTRATION OF DISPARAGING TRADEMARKS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Last fall I wrote a post about the pending case, Matal v. Tam, before the United States Supreme Court that had implications for everyone.  The blog dealt with a section of the federal trademark statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which authorizes the United States Patent…
Business Law

SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAYS PLAINTIFFS CAN’T ESCAPE WORKERS COMP EXCLUSIVITY BY ARGUING NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY ASBESTOS EXPOSURE

Under a new Illinois case, plaintiffs cannot avoid the restrictions of a state’s workers’ compensation statute by claiming exposure to asbestos in the plant’s neighborhood ambient air caused their asbestos related disease, rather than the exposures that occurred during their long employment history. The Seventh…
Products Liability

CORPORATE DEFENDANTS BEWARE – MISSOURI APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS $10 MILLION PUNITIVE DAMAGE VERDICT IN ASBESTOS CASE WITH ONLY “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE BY THE DEFENDANT OF THE HAZARD

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, on May 2, 2017, affirmed a $10 million dollar punitive damages verdict, as well as a $1.5 million actual damages verdict, against Crane Co. in Poage v. Crane Co., No. ED103953 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). This case is…