Real-Time Court Decisions and Other Developments in Asbestos Litigation.
In this California state case, the plaintiff, a Texas resident, claimed asbestos exposure in both California and Texas, although the particular claimed exposure against certain defendants was in Texas. These defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that under Texas law, the plaintiff was unable to meet the legal standard of causation. Both the lower and appellate … Continued
Plaintiff Todd Alexander commenced a wrongful death action claiming decedent Richard Alexander was exposed to asbestos in connection with his sheet metal, heating, and plumbing business. Defendants Auer and Milwaukee Stove moved for summary judgment under Wisconsin’s Statute of Repose and, in the alternative, along with defendant CertainTeed, on lack of causation. The lower court … Continued
Following the highly publicized $190 million verdict in NYCAL in five consolidated asbestos cases, the defendants were successful in reducing the collective award to just under $30 million on a post-trial motion. While the trial court rejected the defendants’ arguments on certain evidentiary issues, causation, apportionment, consolidation, and recklessness, it recognized that the verdicts materially … Continued
In this MDL asbestos case, plaintiff brought an action claiming he had asbestosis. CBS and General Electric moved for summary judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which motion was unopposed. At the time the motion was brought, plaintiff had been diagnosed with mesothelioma but such claim had not yet been added to the lawsuit … Continued
The Supreme Court of Utah ruled that a recovery by an asbestos plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit does not bar a subsequent wrongful death claim brought by his heirs, but there cannot be any double recovery. The plaintiff, who had peritoneal mesothelioma, went to trial against Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide and was awarded a … Continued
Goldberg Segalla founding partner Thomas F. Segalla led the team of lawyers who wrote the inaugural edition of the Reinsurance Professional’s Deskbook: A Practical Guide, a new treatise co-produced by leading legal publisher Thomson Reuters and DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar, the largest organization of defense lawyers in the country.
A key issue in most professional malpractice cases is whether the professional complied with the applicable standard of care. Given that this standard is defined by individual professional communities, an expert is almost always needed to assist the fact-finder. Not just any expert will do. Rather, an ideal expert must be in a position to opine whether the questionable conduct complied with the standard upheld in the defendant’s jurisdiction. This issue was recently raised in Delaware when an expert’s opinion was ignored because he lacked an understanding of the locale at issue.
We’ve reached a milestone! PL Matters is pleased to report that we recently passed our 50,000th hit. We are humbled that thousands of professionals and employers (and our family members) decided to spend a few minutes — maybe more — on our site. Over the next 50,000 hits, we will continue working toward our goal of providing relevant and insightful content regarding the trends, legal developments, decisions, and breaking news impacting the professional liability community. Thank you for your time and your interest.
Expert witnesses play a key role in professional liability matters. The perfect expert will work with counsel to identify and address issues during discovery and later will effectively condense complex issues to a jury in layperson terms. As a result, attorneys must carefully consider who they select and how to best utilize the expert. In a sense, an expert witness is just another tool available to the professional malpractice practitioner; an expensive and unwieldy tool if not vetted and monitored properly. Often, it is the attorney who may be left to answer for poor results arising from an expert’s misconduct.
Attorneys must communicate with expert witnesses to define the scope of the engagement, to prepare for trial, and to evaluate the evidence. Depending on the jurisdiction, some or all of that communication may be protected from disclosure pursuant to the attorney work-product doctrine. In Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the extent of the privilege in this context and reached a bright-line rule in favor of non-disclosure.