It has often seemed that when defending asbestos lawsuits, courts come to the conclusion that contact with an asbestos product automatically makes the product hazardous and Plaintiffs’ experts merely have to opine that each and every contact with that product could cause disease. New York Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe’s decision to preclude Plaintiffs’ experts in the Juni matter changed the landscape of New York asbestos litigation.
Environmental & Toxic Tort
Our attorneys are litigators, regulatory/compliance counsel, and educators in the area of environmental law. We present at various annual state and national symposiums and author articles for many respected legal publications. Here at Hoagland Longo, we recognize the global challenges that our clients face everyday and we serve them with this in mind.
We have devoted significant time and effort to developing innovative methods of managing asbestos litigation for our clients on a national scale. We work closely with our clients to develop and implement national defense strategies utilized in multiple jurisdictions. We value the long-standing relationships we have developed with our clients, some which have extended more than 20 years.
Our firm serves as National Coordinating Counsel for six companies. As National Coordinating Counsel, we have the ability to defend cases on any level, including investigating the corporate and product history of a company, coordinating the preparation of discovery, tracking a company’s litigation nationally, developing strategies to obtain successful results for our clients through motion writing and settlement, and participating in preparation for trial.
We immerse ourselves in the science and law needed for effective defense. The result of this effort is our ability to effectively cross-examine plaintiff’s experts and develop our own defense experts for use at trial. We have worked to develop a network of experts who can be utilized by our clients nationwide.
We also have developed an extensive network of asbestos attorneys throughout the country with whom we have worked very closely. We carefully select local counsel and work with them to develop defense strategies and prepare for trial. We prepare our local counsel to work with us in a way that is cost-effective to our clients and avoids duplication of effort. Our local counsel are prepared to assist in contacting and developing potential expert witnesses, assist in the preparation of corporate witnesses, and develop cases for trial.
Related Blog posts
Appellate Division Holds That Just Registering to Do Business Equates to Consenting to Be Sued in Pennsylvania
In late June, the Pennsylvania Appellate Division decided Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. Int’l Rug Grp., LLC, 2018 Pa. Super. Lexis 742. The petition for re-hearing was denied in late August, and no Petition for Allowance to Appeal has been filed before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Since the New Jersey Supreme Court its issued its decision in 1991 in Rubanick vs. Whitco Chemical Corp., 125 N.J. 421 (1991), New Jersey has had an open-door for toxic tort cases asserting novel claims testing new theories of liability. The Rubanick decision, which is often referred to as the “Junk Science Case”, allowed creative attorneys to file and pursue unique causes of action claiming that exposure to toxic tort substances led to a variety of health maladies.
Will Pennsylvania Finally Consistently Apply the Fair Share Act to All Asbestos/Strict Liability Matters?
On July 31, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s Petition for Appeal, in the case of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., 177 A.3d 892 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2017), where the Pennsylvania Superior Court (Appellate Division) ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102, applies to strict liability actions alleging asbestos-related disease.
On June 21, 2018, the New Jersey Senate passed S2662 unanimously with a vote of 40-0. The Assembly substituted S2662 for A4113, which was identical, and passed S2662 earlier this week.
This blog takes a look at a trending area of law regarding private actions against parties allegedly responsible for climate change. Amie discusses the legal and political conditions in the U.S. surrounding climate change and the evolving impact of the Trump administration on climate change policy and law.
The decision made in an automotive brake dust matter should have a broader applicability in future asbestos litigation and will set a higher bar of proof for plaintiffs.
How Recent Remittitur Decisions Affect an Asbestos Defendant’s Damages Analysis in New York Litigation.
In several recent decisions, the New York Appellate Division, First Department provided guidance as to how appellate courts may treat remitted verdicts in asbestos cases moving forward.
Informative blog on the toxic tort cases, Carl v. Johnson & Johnson and Balderrama v. Johnson & Johnson, and how the trial court took a stricter approach to the science behind the experts’ opinions to find that they were not adequately supported.
A long-awaited decision recently handed down by the New York Court of Appeals expanded the scope of potential liability of manufacturers whose products utilized asbestos components designed and produced by another company.
Over the last few years, the traditional asbestos litigation landscape has begun to change, with an influx of cases now focusing on the potential threat of cancer from the use of talcum powder products.
Most foreign citizens who want to live permanently in the United States obtain immigrant visas. There are family based immigrant visas, employment based immigrant visas, special immigrant based visas, and diversity based immigrant visas. However, another way for foreign citizens to gain permanent residence in the United States is through a dual intent non-immigrant visa.