We first reported on this case on May 14, 2014, when the Court of Appeal ruled. The case was further appealed to the California Supreme Court, which combined it with another case (Haver v. BNSF Railway Co.) which presented a similar issue. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held: Where it is reasonably foreseeable…

Share this:

Government Contractor Defense Available to Broker Which Arranged for Asbestos-Containing Insulation to Be Provided to Navy The Government Contractor defense is available in asbestos lawsuits brought against manufacturers and suppliers of military hardware and equipment. The defense protects the federal government’s exercise of discretion and judgment in its contract specifications and designs. This case considers…

Share this:

When asbestos litigation became extremely costly to defend, to settle and to pay judgments, companies began filing for protection under the Bankruptcy laws. In the three decades since Johns Manville and UNR Industries filed the first asbestos bankruptcy cases, nearly 100 companies have filed for bankruptcy protection due, in part, to asbestos litigation.[1] The vast…

Share this:

(Original opinion filed December 22, 2015; modified opinion filed January 15, 2016; review by California Supreme Court denied March 9, 2016) The doctrine of strict liability is ordinarily inapplicable to transactions whose primary objective is obtaining services and to transactions in which the service aspect predominates and any product sale is merely incidental to the…

Share this:

In 2003, the California Supreme Court ruled in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Ca.4th, 934, that a “consent-to-assignment” provision in a liability insurance policy barred the insured’s assignment of the rights of coverage to a successor company.  The insured in this case, Fluor Corporation, sought a determination that an assignment…

Share this:

Metalclad was an insulation contractor. Mark Ganoe worked in Department 132 at Goodyear Tire & Rubber from 1968 until 1979. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, filed a personal injury action, and gave deposition testimony, but died before trial. His heirs brought a wrongful death action. The only defendant identification witness disclosed by the heir-plaintiffs was…

Share this:

On May 15, 2014, the Court of Appeal answered a question which has been asked repeatedly since the Second District Court of Appeal published a decision in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (“Campbell”), which it later retracted, edited, and republished. Campbell arose from a claim of “take-home” or “secondary” exposure: the plaintiff…

Share this:

In asbestos-related personal injury cases, the determination of whether a particular defendant’s product was or was not a substantial factor in contributing to the plaintiff’s risk of developing an asbestos-related disease is typically a matter for expert testimony and inferences based on circumstantial evidence. Where the plaintiff has been exposed to multiple sources of asbestos,…

Share this:

In 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law (effective January 1, 2013) a bill that became Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.290. Subdivision (a) of the statute sets a seven hour maximum time limit for the deposition of a witness by counsel (other than the witness’ own counsel), except that the court “shall” allow…

Share this:

The Court of Appeal has reversed a nonsuit in favor of Amcord based on an epidemiologist’s testimony that a hypothetical worker who poured a bag of gun plastic cement would be at an increased risk for developing mesothelioma. Arnulfo Hernandez was a career carpenter and construction worker who was exposed to asbestos-containing products from the…

Share this:

© 2018 LOW, BALL & LYNCH | DISCLAIMER | PRIVACY

CONNECT WITH US: