Zimmer Kunz, PLLC’s Post

#VerdictAlert #Jurimatic 🚨Connecticut Jury Awards $15M in Major Asbestos Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson 🚨 A Connecticut jury awarded $15 million to Evan Plotkin, who developed mesothelioma after decades of exposure to asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products. Plotkin's exposure stemmed from personal use of talcum powder and asbestos-containing art supplies. The jury held Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries liable for failing to warn consumers about the asbestos risks. Plotkin was represented by attorneys Brian Kenney, Ben Braly, Ethan Horn, and Dana Simon, who successfully argued the case. Read here: https://lnkd.in/dmYi7ieN #AsbestosLawsuit #JuryVerdict #Mesothelioma #ProductLiability #LegalNews #ConnecticutLaw #TalcumPowderVerdict CC: Exlitem | Expert Witness Profiler [EWP] | Ashish Arun

Cuthbert and White. The Claimant, Mrs Cuthbert (whom I represented along with Max Archer and Jessica Franklin) lost this stage of the litigation. The Court of Appeal, in considering the situation of those exposed to asbestos pre-1965, emphasised the need for the existence of a foreseeable risk of injury which at that time amounted to the risk of causing asbestosis. They found that on the facts determined by the respective Judges below, that threshold had not been passed. In so finding they emphasised the critical effect of ‘the watershed’ change of knowledge in respect of asbestos risks post 1965 (ie from the stage that it was known that trivial amounts could cause mesothelioma). The Judgment throws up interesting issues - not least: what had to be foreseen pre 65, was it that exposure for which the individual tortfeasor alone was responsible, was sufficient of itself to cause asbestosis or that it merely must have foreseeably and materially contributed to any asbestosis which later occurred (had that in fact been the (counterfactual) consequential outcome - the cases were in fact mesothelioma cases). In other words is it sufficient for liability pre 57 to have exposed the victim to a level of asbestos sufficient merely to be seen to have made a material contribution to subsequent asbestosis (whether or not the actual outcome was mesothelioma)?

The Asbestos litigation is the U.S.'s longest running mass tort since the 1960s, targeting companies for their negligence in exposing workers and consumers to asbestos. With litigation as longstanding as this one, it can be difficult to navigate the process of client intake. But with our criteria-driven questions used in our Instant Case Evaluator™, the process can be simple. Download the Asbestos Case Criteria now! https://hubs.li/Q02GDd1-0

📝 Filing an Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit – What You Need to Know 📝 If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness like mesothelioma, you may be eligible for compensation, even if your exposure happened years ago. At Shrader & Associates, we understand how challenging these cases can be. Our experienced asbestos exposure lawyers will investigate your situation, help determine if you have a claim, and explore all avenues for compensation, including asbestos trust funds. 💼 Whether you’re a former worker, a family member exposed to asbestos, or someone unknowingly using asbestos-laden products, you could have a valid claim. 📞 Free Consultation Available - Our team will help guide you through the legal process and ensure you get the compensation you deserve. Contact us today at https://lnkd.in/gnzd7enT #AsbestosLawsuit #MesotheliomaClaims #LegalHelp #ShraderLaw #AsbestosExposure

To learn more about the importance of choosing an attorney who specializes in asbestos cases for a mesothelioma claim, read our latest blog post.

This is something we see all too often in asbestos litigation wherein plaintiff’s counsel will use a formulaic strategy to obtain a favorable jurisdiction and force costly settlements with defendants for whom plaintiffs may have, in fact, never worked. This is especially true for premises defendants. The plaintiff’s self-serving testimony is commonly the sole source of evidence used to support these claims. This issue illustrates the importance of document retention policies for large industrial corporations. Creating and organizing digital copies of emolyment records and maintaining documents exchanged in litigation, such as union records, may just end up saving you millions of dollars down the road.

The agenda for the New York Asbestos Litigation Conference on December 11 is now available! Join industry leaders as they delve into key issues shaping asbestos litigation. For more details or to register, visit: https://lnkd.in/dhE3ueHh #PerrinConferences #AsbestosLitigation #TalcLitigation #LegalIndustry #Networking #LegalConference #LegalInsights

As traditional asbestos manufacturers have been litigated into bankruptcy and have exited the tort system, plaintiffs’ lawyers have adapted their business model by casting a wide net for new companies to sue. Now, some companies are being named as defendants even though they have little or nothing to do with the alleged harm.   This trend, also known as “over-naming,” is especially visible in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, one of the country’s busiest asbestos litigation dockets.    A new study by C. Anne Malik of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Peter Kelso and Marc Scarcella of Roux zooms in on this development, examining a sample set of asbestos lawsuits filed in Philadelphia between 2017-2021. Here’s what the study found.    https://lnkd.in/eWi_53ZF  

Tip Tuesday! While asbestos depositions, specifically those of Plaintiffs, can take multiple days without any identification of your specific client’s products, preparation is key. Prior to a deposition, make sure to understand Plaintiff’s claims, review any relevant discovery responses, and have a full grasp of your client’s potential liability to ensure that you can question Plaintiff effectively, if needed. How do you prepare for a Plaintiff’s deposition in an asbestos exposure case? #TipTuesday #IDCLaw #ToxicTort #ToxicTortLitigation

𝗣𝗲𝗻𝗻𝘀𝘆𝗹𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮 𝗟𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: On November 26, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted an appeal as to whether (1) the trial court erred in finding that “tort claims based on the alleged conduct of a lawfully dissolved LLC, which are expressly barred by Pennsylvania’s LLC dissolution statute, can be revived and asserted against the LLC’s parent through piercing the LLC’s corporate veil;” and (2) the trial court erred in finding that the “‘promote injustice’ element of Pennsylvania’s veil-piercing standard can be met when a lawfully dissolved subsidiary is left without sufficient assets to address its purported ‘foreseeable asbestos liabilities,’ which are barred as a result of subsidiary’s lawful dissolution.” This appeal stems from an asbestos case against a now-defunct shipyard operator, where a split Pennsylvania appellate panel on December 19, 2023, found that a trial judge erred in concluding on summary judgment that the plaintiff could not pierce the corporate veil and go after a defunct firm’s parent company – holding that “[t]he asbestos plaintiffs produced evidence that in practice [Parent Company] and [Defunct Company] acted as a single entity and that [Parent Company] used its control of [Defunct Company] to leave [Defunct Company] subject to the asbestos liabilities, take significant assets for itself, and leave [Defunct Company] with inadequate assets to satisfy foreseeable asbestos liabilities.”