Latest Articles

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently took a rare foray into the world of asbestos litigation after it was asked to appoint a receiver to distribute the remaining reserves from casualty insurance policies issued to Krafft-Murphy Company, Inc. (“Krafft-Murphy”) to plaintiffs who allege injury from asbestos-containing products used by Krafft-Murphy.  The Chancery Court, in an opinion dated February 4, 2013 (pdf download available here), concluded that Krafft-Murphy was no longer amendable to suit,…
On July 27, 2012, a jury in the matter of Michael Galliher v. American Optical Corp., et al., an asbestos personal injury lawsuit pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, awarded over $2.8 million to the surviving wife and the estate of Michael Galliher.  The jury found the sole defendant at trial, R.T. Vanderbilt (“RTV”), negligent for failing to adequately warn of the hazards of its industrial talc product that was used…
  As has been discussed on this blog, a number of Courts—including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the DE Maritime—have recently held that maritime law may apply to claims brought by former Navy sailors who allege exposure to asbestos while performing maintenance work on ships while at sea.  Now, the Supreme Court of Virginia, in John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick, has held that parties bringing such claims under maritime law on behalf of deceased…
Co-authored by Brian Gross Choice of law analyses can, at times, be complicated affairs.  That is particularly true in asbestos cases in which a plaintiff alleges exposure to numerous asbestos-containing products in multiple states over a prolonged period of years.  An additional layer of complexity is added when some or all of the plaintiff’s allegations relate to asbestos exposure on United States Navy ships.  The question of whether maritime law should apply in such instances…