On July 12, 2018, in an unpublished opinion, the Illinois 5th District Court of Appeals reversed the Madison County Court, which had denied Ford Motor Company’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in an...more
Companies facing "take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20 Arizona Court of...more
9/29/2016
/ Appeals ,
Asbestos ,
Asbestos Litigation ,
Duty of Care ,
Hazardous Substances ,
Mesothelioma ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Negligence ,
Take-Home Exposure ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Workplace Hazards
Following recent court action, defendants up against "take-home" asbestos exposure claims may need to rethink their legal strategy.
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a Motion for Reconsideration of a...more
In Wolfe, et al. v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., et al., Cause No. 1522-CC11026 (Div. No. 4), the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, 22nd Circuit, entered an April 11, 2016, Order dismissing certain defendants from an...more
On March 2, 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court struck down Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act and held that its statute of repose “does not apply to cases involving protracted exposure to an inherently dangerous...more
In what is believed to be the Court’s first post-Daimler written decisions on the issue, Madison County, Illinois Judge Stephen A. Stobbs recently issued two decisions addressing whether the Court has personal jurisdiction...more
In Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., the Fourth District of Illinois recently overturned a $1.4 million verdict against the Illinois Central Railroad. At trial, the Court had excluded evidence of the decedent's work at...more
Maryland's highest appellate court ruled last week that a plaintiff's expert in an asbestos injury lawsuit could testify that every single exposure to asbestos substantially contributes to the development of mesothelioma,...more