Brian Gross

Photo of Brian Gross

Brian D. Gross is a partner at MG+M who has extensive experience in a broad spectrum of litigation. He is also a member of several corporate defendants’ national trial teams.

Connect: http://www.mgmlaw.com/brian-grossbgross@mgmlaw.comhttps://www.lexblog.com/author/bgross/feed/
Firm/Organization: Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP
Blogs: Defense Litigation Insider

Latest Articles

Overview On March 30, 2018, Judge Rya Zobel of the United States District Court (District of Massachusetts) issued a memorandum of decision on two Defendants’ (NSTAR Electric, formerly Boston Edison, and General Electric) Motions for Summary Judgment in an asbestos personal injury and wrongful death matter, June Stearns and Clifford Stearns as Co-Executors of the Estate of Wayne Oliver v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., that addresses multiple issues, including statute of repose, strict…
Recently, in Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, the Fourth Circuit held that a government contractor is entitled to federal jurisdiction, even in product liability failure-to-warn actions, based on the contractor’s assertion that it has a colorable federal defense of government contractor immunity. 860 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2017). The big takeaway from this case, however, is that the Fourth Circuit has now joined the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that a…
Ever since the United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), in which the Court held that general personal jurisdiction exists over a corporation only where the corporation is fairly regarded as “at home,” many plaintiffs and state courts have attempted to distinguish Daimler in an effort to expand the boundaries of a court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. It should come as no surprise then that the…
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, 571 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), has played a significant role this year in cases pending in Delaware and Rhode Island. Most recently, the California Supreme Court has weighed in, changing what we thought we knew about personal jurisdiction, at least in California. In Daimler, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can exercise general jurisdiction (whereby a state court…
On October 13, 2016, Presiding Justice Alice B. Gibney of the Rhode Island Superior Court ruled on Defendant Dana Companies, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pending in the case of Harold Wayne Murray and Janice M. Murray v. 3M Company, et al., granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss upon finding that the court lacked sufficient minimum contacts to exercise personal jurisdiction – either general or specific – over the defendant. With…
Caution-Hearing-Protection-Required
Occupational Hearing Loss (OHL) is one of the most prevalent work-related illnesses in the United States with 22 million workers exposed to hazardous noise each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control. With approximately $242 million spent annually on workers’ compensation claims for disabilities arising from hearing loss, this number is set to increase in light of a new favorable holding for Louisiana employers with industrial workplace settings. The Louisiana Supreme Court held…
Note: For more MG&M analysis on Garlock, please see previous post by William Larson and Brian Gross.   The ramifications of the Garlock asbestos bankruptcy are just beginning to be felt across the country.  As new developments continue to play out, it is important to note that in each of the 15 cases in which Garlock was allowed to conduct additional discovery, the bankruptcy court found evidence that alternative exposures to asbestos were withheld.  This…
The Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Georgia-Pacific Corp. was not liable for illness involving a woman who was exposed to asbestos while doing her father’s laundry in the 1960s. The Insurance Journal reported on the recent decision: The Court of Appeals ruled that Georgia-Pacific Corp. was not obligated to warn relatives of the dangers of asbestos in the 1960s. The hazard was not sufficiently known until federal regulations were issued in…
Background: Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (“Garlock” or “Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in June 2010.  Garlock had been an active asbestos defendant for its asbestos-containing precut gaskets, sheet gasket material, and packing materials.  In January, after extensive discovery and a trial held under seal, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion (pdf download) in which it estimated Garlock’s liability for present and future mesothelioma claims.  The Court adopted the Debtors’ estimate of…
Companies and insurers continue to experience an increase in the number of lawsuits they face, which involve Plaintiffs who allege that their lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure, despite the fact that many of these Plaintiffs were longtime smokers.  The trend, which has emerged over several years, has gained nationwide prominence as highlighted by New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy’s asbestos lawsuit. Congresswoman McCarthy sued more than 70 companies alleging that their asbestos-containing products caused…