ASBESTOS LITIGATION AND STATUTES OF REPOSE: THE APPLICATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULE IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS TO BREATHE EASIER

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "ASBESTOS LITIGATION AND STATUTES OF REPOSE: THE APPLICATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULE IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS TO BREATHE EASIER"

Transcription

1 ASBESTOS LITIGATION AND STATUTES OF REPOSE: THE APPLICATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULE IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS TO BREATHE EASIER INTRODUCTION Asbestos has been known to man for centuries.' The ability of asbestos to perform the functions of insulation and resistance to fire, while remaining relatively indestructible, has led to its use in thousands of products. 2 Only recently has society become aware of the dangers to human health and life associated with using one of the most dangerous materials of nature. 3 In recent years, litigation involving asbestos-related injuries has increased dramatically. 4 Three diseases have been positively linked with exposure to asbestos fibers: asbestosis, mesothelioma, and various cancers. 5 The diseases associated with asbestos exposure are all characterized by long latency periods. 6 During the latency period, the disease is dormant and not capable of being detected through routine examination. 7 The latency period for asbestosis has been estimated at ten to forty years following exposure to large quantities of asbestos fibers Mehaffy, Asbestos-Related Lung Disease, 16 FoRUM 341, 342 (1980). The use of asbestos dates back to the fifth century B.C. Early writers such as Pliny the Elder, Herodotus and Plutarch mentioned it. Benjamin Franklin owned a purse made out of asbestos and firemen wore asbestos clothing as early as Id. 2. Id. at ; T. WI.LGING, TRENDS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION 7 (Federal Judicial Center 1987). 3. Mehaffy, 16 FORUM at Classen, An Investigation into the Statute of Limitations and Product Identifiation in Asbestos Litigation, 30 How. L.J. 1, 1 (1987). The number of cases grows every year because of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases. Id. 5. T. WILLGING, supra note 2, at 5. Asbestosis is "a pulmonary insufficiency caused by a destruction of air sacs in healthy lung tissue." Id. at 5 n.8 (citing Selikoff, Churg & Hammond, Asbestos Exposure and Neoplasia, 188 J. A.M.A. 22, 25 (1964)). "Mesothelioma is a type of cancer... that affects the mesothelial cells that make up the pleural, pericardial, and peritoneal membranes enclosing the lungs, heart, and abdomen, respectively." T. WiLLGING, supra note 2, at 5 n.9 (citing B. CASTLEMAN, AS. BESTOS: MEDICAL AND LEGAL ASPEc'rs 302 (2d ed. 1986). Asbestos exposure is associated with lung and gastrointestinal cancer. T. WILLGING, supra note 2, at 5. Carcinoma of the esophagus, larynx, stomach, rectum, and colon are suspected to be caused by exposure to asbestos. 5A LAWYERS' MEDICAL CYCLOPEDIA 33.54, at 67 (3d ed & Supp. 1988). 6. T. WILLGING, supra note 2, at 5-6. Latency period refers to the period between exposure to asbestos and manifestation of the disease. Id. at Id. 8. Id. The latency period varies according to the age of the worker and the level of exposure. Id. at 6 n.11. Mesothelioma has been observed with increasing frequency

2 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24 Mesothelioma has a latency period of at least twenty years after exposure to asbestos. 9 Lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure has a latency period of fifteen to thirty-five years. 10 The lengthy latency periods associated with asbestos-related diseases have caused various problems for the legal system." The most prevalent of these problems is the conflict that arises between the policy goals of statutes of repose 12 and the policy goals of recovery.' 3 The analysis contained in this Comment is two-fold. First is a discussion of the legal and social issues raised by the application of statutes of repose to causes of action concerning asbestos-related diseases. 14 Second is an examination of the states in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and how they have addressed the increasing number of plaintiffs seeking compensation for asbestos-related injuries. 15 THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATUTES OF REPOSE AND STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS The phrase "statutes of repose" has no standard definition and has been used inconsistently by courts.' 6 However, the phrase is in those workers who have survived an average of thirty-five years after their exposure to asbestos. 5A LAWYERS' MEDICAL CYCLOPEDIA, at 72. Very few workers live longer than two years after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Id. at Classen, 30 How. L.J. at 5. Mesothelioma is almost always fatal and, unlike asbestosis, may be contracted after only a single exposure to asbestos. Id. 10. T. WILLGING, supra note 2, at 6. For workers suffering from asbestosis, the average latency period is twenty-five years from exposure to development of lung cancer. Many die from asbestosis before any type of cancer manifests itself. Id. 11. Id. The lengthy latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases makes it difficult for the injured person to prove factual causation. All exposures to asbestos are relevant because no one exposure results in asbestosis. The latency period also prevents epidemiological evidence from being developed and, as a result, eliminates a needed element of proof in the plaintiff's burden of medical causation. Id. at See irfra notes and accompanying text. See also Comment, Occupational Carcinogenesis and Statutes of Limitation: Resolving Relevant Policy Goals, 10 ENVTL. L. 113, 117 (1979). One purpose of a statute of repose is to establish a date after which a lawsuit cannot be maintained. McGovern, The Status of Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Product Liability Actions" Present and Future, 16 Fo. RUM 416, 419 (1981). 13. See infra notes and accompanying text. The purpose of tort actions is to impose liability upon the defendant who caused the plaintiff's injuries. Comment, 10 ENvTL. L. at See infra notes and accompanying text. 15. See infra notes and accompanying text. 16. Note, Product Liability Statutes of Repose As Conflicting with State Constitutions: The Plaintiffs Are Winning, 26 ARiz. L. REv. 363, 365 (1984). The terms "statutes of repose" and "statutes of limitations" are often used interchangeably. School Bd. of Norfolk v. United States Gypsum Co., 234 Va. 32, -, 360 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1987). The terms "statutes of repose" and "statutes of limitations" refer to two distinct types of statutes which differ in concept, function and definition. Id. at -, 360 S.E.2d at 327.

3 19911 STATUTES OF REPOSE generally understood to refer to statutes which limit the liability of potential defendants by circumscribing the time in which a cause of action may be sustained. 17 Older case-law and treatises use the phrases "statutes of repose" and "statutes of limitations" interchangeably.' 8 Today, judges are forced to make distinctions between the two types of statutes because, unlike statutes of limitation, statutes of repose may affect many areas of the law. 19 One distinction between statutes of limitation and statutes of repose is that the phrase "repose" refers to the purpose of the statute while the phrase "limitation" refers to the kind of statute. 2 Statutes of repose are partly substantive in nature, defining rights by extinguishing claims which accrue after the expiration of the statutory period. 21 A products liability statute of repose limits the potential liability of a manufacturer by limiting the time in which an action can be commenced. 22 A statute of repose can operate to bar causes of action before they even accrue23 Statutes of repose extinguish a cause of action after a certain time period, which is measured either from the delivery of the product or the completion of the project. 24 The statute operates regardless of when the cause of action accrues 25 or regardless of when notice that a legal right has been invaded is given. 26 Statutes of repose extinguish the legal remedy and all causes of action which have accrued in the past, as well as those causes of action which may accrue in the future. 27 Statutes of repose have been said to represent: legislative decisions that "as a matter of policy there should be a specific time beyond which a defendant should no Because of the inconsistent use of the terms "statutes of repose" and "statutes of limitation," several courts and commentators refer to "statutes of repose" as "statutes of limitations." In this Comment, I will refer to these statutes as statutes of repose. 17. BLACK's LAW DICTIONARY 1411 (6th ed. 1990). Statutes of repose are distinguishable from statutes of limitation in that the latter merely cut off the right to maintain a cause of action after accrual of the action. Id. 18. McGovern, The Status of Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Product Liability Actions: Present and Future, 16 FORUM 416, 417 (1981). 19. Miers v. Central Mine Equip. Co., 604 F. Supp. 502, 505 n.3 (D. Neb. 1985). 20. McGovern, 16 FORUM at Note, 26 Amiz. L. REv. at Kline v. J.I. Case Co., 520 F. Supp. 564, 566 (N.D. I ). 23. Rittenhouse v. Tabor Grain Co., 203 M1. App. 3d 639, -, 561 N.E.2d 264, 273 (1990)(quoting Thornton v. Mono Mfg. Co., 99 Ill. App. 3d 722, 726, 425 N.E.2d 522, 525 (1981)). 24. BLAcK'S LAw DICTIONARY 1411 (6th ed. 1990). 25. A cause of action "accrues" when all the elements of the cause of action are in place so that the injured party can maintain a suit thereon. BLACK'S LAw DIcrIONARY at 21. The date of accrual is the date at which the injured party's rights vest and become present rights or demands. Id. 26. Id. at United States Gypsum Co., 234 Va. at -, 360 S.E.2d at

4 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [VCol. 24 longer be subjected to protracted liability. Thus a 'statute of repose' is intended as a substantive definition of rights as distinguished from a procedural limitation on the remedy used to enforce rights. ' 2 In contrast, statutes of limitation prescribe a time frame within which an accrued cause of action must be brought.- 9 A statute of limitations is primarily procedural in nature s and only extinguishes the right to maintain an accrued cause of action. 3 ' The statute does not extinguish the substantive right itself. 3 2 Statutes of limitation represent the desire of legislatures and courts to eliminate stale claims. 33 Any repose conferred upon a defendant by a statute of limitation is merely an incidental benefit.1 Statutes of limitations are designed to promote justice by precluding the revival of stale claims. 3 5 The theory underlying statutes of limitations is that "even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them." '' THE OPERATION OF STATUTES OF REPOSE IN LATENT DISEASE CASES Various possibilities exist for determining when an injury occurs in latent disease cases for statutes of repose purposes s17 Twelve jurisdictions have enacted statutes that establish the date of accrual expressly for asbestos-related injuries.-8 Seven states have statutes of 28. Id. at -, 360 S.E.2d at 328 (quoting Stevenson, Products Liability and the Virginia Statute of Limitations - A Call for the Legislative Rescue Squad, 16 U. RICH. L. REV. 323, 334 n.38 (1982)). 29. Rittenhouse, 203 M1. App. at -, 561 N.E.2d at 273; Universal Eng'g Corp. v. Perez, 451 So. 2d 463, 465 (Fla. 1984). 30. Rittenhouse, 203 Ill. App. 3d at -, 561 N.E.2d at Mine, 520 F. Supp. at Fenton v. Citizens Say. Assoc., 400 F. Supp. 874, 879 n.6 (C.D. Mo. 1975). 33. Goad v. Celotex Corp., 831 F.2d 508, 510 (4th Cir. 1987). 34. Id. at Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, (1944). 36. Id. at Birnbaum, "First Breath's" Last Gasp: The Discovery Rule in Products Liability Cases, 13 FORUM 279, 281 (1977). The terms "statutes of repose" and "statutes of limitations" are used inconsistently by courts and commentators. See supra note 16 and accompanying text. 38. See ALA. CODE (b) (Supp. 1990) (stating that an action accrues on the date the injured party first discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury); CAL. Civ. PROC. CODE (West Supp. 1990) (declaring that an action accrues on the later of either the date the plaintiff first suffers injury or the date when the plaintiff knows, or in the "exercise of reasonable diligence should have known," that his injury was caused by exposure to asbestos); CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN a(e)

5 1991] STATUTES OF REPOSE repose which do not accrue until the injured person discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, his injury. 39 Two states have statutes of repose which do not apply if the injury was not discoverable or did not manifest itself within the ten year period of repose. 4 Because the date of accrual is not defined in (West Supp. 1990) (stating that the ten year limitation does not apply to actions involving exposure to asbestos; however, no action may be sustained more than thirty years from date of last exposure to asbestos); D.C. CODE ANN (Supp. 1990) (declaring that an action accrues on the later of either the date the plaintiff first suffers injury or the date when the plaintiff knows, or in the "exercise of reasonable diligence should have known," that his injury was caused by exposure to asbestos); IND. CODE ANN (Burns Supp. 1990) (stating that an action accrues on date that it is known by the injured person that he has an asbestos-related injury or disease); MIss. CODE ANN (2) (Supp. 1990) (declaring that a cause of action for latent injury or disease does not accrue until plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of "reasonable diligence should have discovered," the injury); NEB. REv. STAT (5) (Reissue 1985) (stating that a cause of action accrues when injured person is informed by competent medical authority of discovery of the injury and that the injury resulted from exposure to asbestos or when facts which would lead to such discovery are known, whichever is earlier); N.D. CENT. CODE (4) (Supp. 1989) (declaring that a cause of action accrues when injured person is informed by competent medical authority of discovery of the injury and that the injury resulted from exposure to asbestos or when facts which would lead to such discovery are known, whichever is earlier); OHio REV. CODE ANN (Baldwin 1990) (stating that a cause of action accrues when injured person is informed of his injury by competent medical authority and that the injury was caused by exposure to asbestos or when he should have discovered his injury, whichever occurs earlier); OR. REv. STAT (1989) (declaring that a cause of action accrues on date plaintiff discovers, or in the "exercise of reasonable care should have discovered," the disease and its cause); TENN. CODE ANN (b) (Supp. 1990) (stating that the limitations of actions does not apply to actions resulting from asbestos exposure); VA. CODE ANN (4) (Supp. 1990) (declaring that an action accrues when the injured person is first informed by a physician of his asbestosrelated injury). 39. See COLO. REV. STAT (8) (Supp. 1990) (stating that a cause of action accrues on the date both the injury and its cause are "discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence"); N.H. REv. STAT. ANN. 507-D:2 (Supp. 1989) (declaring that an action accrues on the date the injury is discovered, or "in the exercise of reasonable diligence, [should] have been discovered by the plaintiff"); N.C. GEN. STAT. 1-52(16) (Supp. 1990) (stating that an action accrues when the injury "becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent to the claimant"); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN (Supp. 1990) (declaring that an action accrues on the date the injury occurred, or when the injured party discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, his injury); UTAH CODE ANN (Supp. 1990) (stating that an action accrues when the plaintiff discovers, "or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered, both the harm and its cause"); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, 512(4) (Supp. 1990) (declaring that a cause of action accrues on the date the injury is discovered); WASH. REV. CODE ANN (3) (Supp. 1990) (stating that an action accrues when the plaintiff discovers "or in the exercise of due diligence should have discovered the harm and its cause"). 40. See IDAHO CODE (4) (Supp. 1990); KAN. STAT. ANN (2)(D) (Supp. 1989). The Kansas statute provides that the ten year period of repose does not apply if the injury-causing aspect of the product that existed at the time of delivery was not discoverable by an ordinary reasonably prudent person until more than ten (10) years after the time of delivery, or if the harm, caused within

6 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24 the statutes of repose of most states, the date of accrual has been determined judicially. 41 Three different approaches have been applied by the courts of various jurisdictions to determine the accrual date for asbestos-related injuries: the first breath rule;2 the last breath rule; 43 and the discovery rule." THE FIRST BREATH RULE Under the first breath rule, a cause of action accrues on the date of the plaintiff's first exposure to or inhalation of the hazardous substance. 45 Under this rule, the ignorance of the injured party that a cause of action has accrued in his favor does not toll the statute of limitations.a In Scott v. Rinehart & Dennis Co., 47 the plaintiff Scott contracted silicosis while building a tunnel for the defendant.48 Scott commenced his action three years after he had begun working for the company. 4 9 Scott alleged that he had commenced his action immediten (10) years after the time of delivery, did not manifest itself until after that time. KAN. STAT. ANN (2)(D) (Supp. 1989). 41. See, e.g., Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 296 Md. 656, -, 464 A.2d 1020, 1025 (1983) (noting that cause of action accrues when claimant discovered or reasonably should have discovered the nature and cause of injury); Karjala v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 523 F.2d 155, 161 (8th Cir. 1975) (holding that cause of action accrues when injury manifests itself); Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 580 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Ky. 1979) (holding that cause of action accrues when plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of both the injury and the fact that defendant may have caused it). But see Olson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 198 Ill. App. 3d 1039, -, 556 N.E.2d 716, 719 (1990) (refusing to carve an exception out of the Illinois statute of repose for asbestos victims). 42. See, e.g., Bassham v. Owens-Coming Fiber Glass Corp., 327 F. Supp. 1007, 1008 (D. N.M. 1971). See infra notes and accompanying text. 43. See, e.g., Chase v. Cassiar Mining Corp., 622 F. Supp. 1027, 1028 (N.D.N.Y. 1985). See infra notes and accompanying text. 44. See, e.g., Karjala, 523 F.2d at 161; Woessner v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 576 F. Supp. 596, (E.D. La. 1984); Reimer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 576 F. Supp 197, (E.D. Wis. 1983); Pauley v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 759, 765 (S.D. W.Va. 1981); Strickland v. Johns-Manville Int'l Corp., 461 F. Supp. 215, 218 (S.D. Tex. 1978); Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28 (1989); Sheppard v. A.C. & S. Co., 498 A.2d 1126, 1130 (Del. Super. Ct. 1985); Copeland v. Armstrong Cork Co., 447 So. 2d 922, 926 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984); Louisville Trust Co., 580 S.W.2d at 501; Bernier v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 516 A.2d 534, 543 (Me. 1986); Harig v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 284 Md. 70, -, 394 A.2d 299, 306 (1978); Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Mo. 1984); Cathcart v. Keene Indus. Insulation, 324 Pa. Super. 123, -, 471 A.2d 493, 500 (1984). See ifra notes and accompanying text. 45. Scott v. Rinehart & Dennis Co., 116 W. Va. 319, -, 180 S.E. 276, 277 (1935). 46. Id. at -, 180 S.E.2d at W. Va. 319, 180 S.E. 276 (1935). 48. Id. at -, 180 S.E. at Id. at -, 180 S.E. at 276. The applicable statute of limitations at the time the case was decided stated that all actions like that of the plaintiff's had to be commenced within "one year next after the right to bring the same shall have accrued, and not after." Id. at -, 180 S.E. at 276 (citing W. VA. CODE (1931)).

7 1991] STATUTES OF REPOSE ately after discovering that he had contracted silicosis. 5 The company alleged that Scott's cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 5 ' A West Virginia circuit court overruled Scott's demurrer to the company's statute of limitations defense and certified the rulings to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. 52 In applying the first breath rule to Scott's case, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia stated that "'[t]he true inquiry, therefore, at law, is, when did the cause of action arise, and not when did knowledge of that fact come to the plaintiff.'-53 The court rejected Scott's argument that the court should change the construction of the statute under the "dictates of humanity." 54 The court responded that a change in the construction of the statute was a matter for the legislature and affirmed the rulings of the circuit court. 55 In 1981, the United States District Court for the District of West Virginia declined to follow Scott and instead adopted the discovery rule in cases involving asbestos-related injuries. 56 The court noted the inequities of requiring a plaintiff suffering from an asbestos-related disease to commence his cause of action before he has had the opportunity to discover his injury. 57 The only state that continues to adhere to the first breath rule in cases involving exposure to asbestos is New Mexico. 58 In Bassham v. Owens-Corning Fiber Glass Corp., 59 an insulation worker, who had contracted asbestosis, brought an action against the manufacturer, 50. Scott, 116 W. Va. at -, 180 S.E. at Id. at -, 180 S.E. at Id. at -, 180 S.E. at Id. at-, 180 S.E. at 277 (quoting Fee v. Fee, 10 Ohio 469, 475, 36 Am. Dec. 103, 106, 107 (1841)). 54. Scott, 116 W. Va. at -, 180 S.E. at Id. at -, 180 S.E. at Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at The district court stated that it was not bound to follow Scott under the Erie doctrine if it appeared that the highest court in West Virginia would not follow it. Id. at 761. See also Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). The court determined that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia would not follow Scott in the instant case. Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at See Baswham, 327 F. Supp. at A recent law review article states that New York adheres to the first breath rule. Note, Civil Procedure - Limitations of Actions - Discovery Rule - Creeping Disease - Asbestosis, 25 DuQ. L. REv. 1097, 1106 (1987). However, a close examination of New York case-law reveals that New York has never adhered to the first breath rule in latent disease cases. See Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 666 (2nd Cir. 1985); Chase, 622 F. Supp. at 1028; Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, -, 430 N.E.2d 1297, , 446 N.Y.S.2d 244, (1981). The New York Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that in cases involving the ingestion, inhalation, or injection of hazardous substances the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the injured person's last exposure to the hazardous substance. Ward, 771 F.2d at F. Supp (D.N.M. 1971).

8 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24 whose products he had been exposed to for twenty years. 6 Although the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico did not reach the issue of whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations, the court stated that the case of Roybal v. White 8 ' was controlling on the issue. 62 In Roybal, a medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that medical malpractice actions accrued at the time of the wrongdoing and not at the time of the discovery of the injury. 63 The court in Bassham stated that the Roybal decision governed personal injury suits and held that the statute of limitations barred actions based on exposure to asbestos occurring more than three years prior to the filing of the action.6 4 THE LAST BREATH RULE The last breath rule treats the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos as a tort that is continuing in nature. 6 5 As a result, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the plaintiff's last exposure to asbestos. 66 In Chase v. Cassiar Mining Corp.,67 the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York applied the last breath rule to determine the date of accrual in an asbestos case. 6 s The court held that the plaintiff had only three years after his last exposure to asbestos to commence his action. 69 Under New York law, as long as a plaintiff sustains an injury and commences his action within the three year statutory period, he "may recover for any cumulative effect on such injuries that may have resulted from inhalations occurring prior to the three-year period. '70 The New York statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last exposure to the hazardous substance in all cases involving the inhalation, injec- 60. Id. at N.M. 285, 383 P.2d 250 (1963). 62. Bassham, 327 F. Supp. at Roybal, 72 N.M. at -, 383 P.2d at Bassham, 327 F. Supp. at The applicable statute at the time this case was decided was N.M. STAT. ANN (1953), which provided a three year limitation period. 65. Note, Civil Procedure - Limitations of Actions - Discovery Rule - Creeping Disease - Asbestosis, 25 DuQ. L. REv. 1097, 1107 (1987). 66. Id F. Supp (N.D.N.Y. 1985). 68. Id. at "In an 'asbestos case' the action accrues on the date of last exposure." Id. (citing Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 1008, 430 N.E.2d 1297, 446 N.Y.S.2d 244 (1981), cert denied, 456 U.S. 967 (1982)). 69. Chase, 622 F. Supp. at The New York statute of limitations for personal injury actions was three years at the time this case was decided. N.Y. CIV. PRAC. L. & R. 214(5) (McKinney 1972 & Supp ). 70. Ward v. Desachem Co., 771 F.2d 663, 667 (2d Cir. 1985).

9 1991] STATUTES OF REPOSE tion or ingestion of harmful substances. 71 This rule of accrual is applied in these types of cases regardless of the date on which the injured party actually discovered his injury. 72 According to the United States District Court, the New York legislature had not intended to deny recovery to victims of exposure to asbestos when it adopted the last breath rule. 73 However, the court did recognize that the last breath rule has been characterized as a very harsh rule for victims of asbestos-related injuries. 74 Three jurisdictions have abandoned the last breath rule in favor of the discovery rule for latent disease cases. 75 For example, the state of Kentucky formerly adhered to the last breath rule, but abandoned it in favor of the discovery rule. 76 Prior to the case of Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 77 the Supreme Court of Kentucky had held that a cause of action for exposure to silica dust accrued on the date that the employee was last exposed to the dangerous substance. 78 In Louisville Trust Co., the Supreme Court of Kentucky refused to follow its previous decision because the application of the last breath rule was not in accord with the United States Supreme Court decision of Urie v. Thompson. 79 THE DISCOVERY RULE Recently, courts have recognized the inequities of applying statutes of repose to latent disease cases.s Under the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the injured party discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he has 71. Id. at 666 (quoting Martin v. Edwards Laboratories, 60 N.Y.2d 417, 426, 457 N.E.2d 1150, 1154, 469 N.Y.S.2d 923, 927 (1983)). 72. Ward, 771 F.2d at Chase, 622 F. Supp. at Id. at ALA. CODE (b) (Supp. 1990) (adopting the discovery rule for causes of action involving exposure to asbestos). Alabama previously adhered to the last breath rule in asbestos cases. See Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 399 So. 2d 263 (Ala. 1981). IND. CODE ANN (Burns Supp. 1990) (adopting the discovery rule for causes of action involving asbestos-related injuries). The date of accrual in asbestos cases arising in Indiana used to be the date of the last exposure to the asbestos. See Braswell v. Flintkote Mines, Ltd., 723 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1983). See also Louisville Trust Co., 580 S.W.2d at (extending the discovery rule to latent disease cases in Kentucky). Kentucky previously adhered to the last breath rule in latent disease cases. See Columbus Mining Co. v. Walker, 271 S.W.2d 276 (Ky. 1954). 76. Louisville Trust Co., 580 S.W.2d at S.W.2d 497 (Ky. 1979). 78. See Columbus Mining Co., 271 S.W.2d at Louisville Trust Co., 580 S.W.2d at 499. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949) (holding that cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knew or should have known that defendant's conduct had injured him). See infra notes and accompanying text. 80. Birnbaum, 13 FoRUM at 285.

10 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24 been injured. 8 ' The present trend in most jurisdictions in products liability cases involving chemicals, drugs and asbestos is to apply a variation of the discovery rule. 82 The adoption of the discovery rule in latent disease cases corresponds with the concern "that the injured party should be allowed to have his day in court when his injury was of an inherently unknowable nature." ' s The discovery rule has several variations; for example, there are four different time periods which a court could adopt to determine the date of accrual for statute of repose purposes:8 4 (1) when the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, not only his injury, but that the defendant caused his injury; s 5 (2) when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that he has been injured and that his injury may have been caused by the conduct of another; s6 (3) when the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that he has asbestosis; 8 7 and (4) when the disease manifests itself.8 s An examination of specific case-law examples best illustrates the nuances of the discovery rule. 8 9 DISCOVERY OF INJURY AND ITS ExAcT CAUSE Under one variation of the discovery rule, a plaintiff's cause of action accrues when he knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of his injury and that the defendant caused the injury. 9 In Pauley v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 91 the United States District Court for the District of West Virginia adopted the discovery rule in a claim for injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. 92 Pauley, an insulator, had worked for Union Carbide for thirty years; during this time he used products manufactured by Combustion Engineering, Inc.("Company"). 93 In 1973, Pauley was diagnosed with "occupational pneumoconiosis and/or silicosis." 94 In 81. See supra note Birnbaum, 13 FoRuM at 285. See Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at Birnbaum, 13 FORuM at Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at See Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at 764; Harig, 284 Md. at -, 394 A.2d at See Louisville Trust Co., 580 S.W.2d at 501; Cathcart, 324 Pa. Super. at -, 471 A.2d at Strickland, 461 F. Supp. at 218; Elmore, 673 S.W.2d at Kariala, 523 F.2d at 160; Woesner, 576 F. Supp. at ; Sheppard, 498 A.2d at 1133; Bernier, 516 A.2d at See infra notes and accompanying text. 90. Pauley, 528 F. Supp. at F. Supp. 759 (S.D. W. Va. 1981). 92. Id. at Id. at Id. at 761.

WikiLeaks Document Release

WikiLeaks Document Release WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report

More information

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999

No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999 RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION Case: 4:12-cv-02030-DDN Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY HAYDEN, ) individually and as plaintiff

More information

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY REFERENCE GUIDE 41 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATE STATUTORY REFERENCE GUIDE The following references to statutes relevant to medical malpractice cases are intended exclusively

More information

The Effect of Asbestosis Exclusions October 20, 2014

The Effect of Asbestosis Exclusions October 20, 2014 The Effect of Asbestosis Exclusions October 20, 2014 Andrew S. Lewner Does this exclusion bar all bodily injury claims resulting from exposure to asbestos? In consideration of the premium charged it is

More information

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 592

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 592 SESSION OF 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 592 As Amended by Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance Brief* SB 592 would enact new law, the Asbestos Compensation Fairness Act.

More information

Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims

Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims Choice of Law Governing Asbestos Claims By David T. Biderman and Judith B. Gitterman Choice of law questions in asbestos litigation can be highly complex. The court determining choice of law must often

More information

Table A-7. State Medical Record Laws: Minimum Medical Record Retention Periods for Records Held by Medical Doctors and Hospitals*

Table A-7. State Medical Record Laws: Minimum Medical Record Retention Periods for Records Held by Medical Doctors and Hospitals* Summary of statutory or regulatory provision by entity. Alabama As long as may be necessary to treat the patient and for medical legal purposes. Ala. Admin. Code r. 545-X-4-.08 (2007). (1) 5 years. Ala.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTION FILED August 27, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk PAUL G. BOWMAN, et ux., C/A NO. 03A01-9703-CV-00092 JAMES R. KIRKLAND, et ux., KNOX CIRCUIT,

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 99B 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 99B 1 Chapter 99B. Products Liability. 99B-1. Definitions. When used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Claimant" means a person or other entity asserting a claim and, if said claim

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-11688. D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

More information

Cardelli Lanfear P.C.

Cardelli Lanfear P.C. Michigan Prepared by Cardelli Lanfear P.C. 322 West Lincoln Royal Oak, MI 48067 Tel: 248.850.2179 Fax: 248.544.1191 1. Introduction History of Tort Reform in Michigan Michigan was one of the first states

More information

This chart accompanies Protection From Creditors for Retirement Plan Assets, in the January 2014 issue of The Tax Adviser.

This chart accompanies Protection From Creditors for Retirement Plan Assets, in the January 2014 issue of The Tax Adviser. This chart accompanies Protection From Creditors for Retirement Plan Assets, in the January 2014 issue of The Tax Adviser. State-by-state analysis of IRAs as exempt property State State Statute IRA Alabama

More information

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse 6/2009 State Mandatory Reporters Language on Privilege Notes Alabama

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse 6/2009 State Mandatory Reporters Language on Privilege Notes Alabama Alabama any other person called upon to render aid to any child ALA. CODE 26-14-10 Alaska ALA. CODE 26-14-3(a) paid employees of domestic violence and sexual assault programs, and crisis intervention and

More information

National Compendium of Statutes of Repose for Products Liability and Real Estate Improvements

National Compendium of Statutes of Repose for Products Liability and Real Estate Improvements National Compendium of Statutes of Repose for Products Liability and Real Estate Improvements By Alan R. Levy Current as of September 1, 2010. Note: This chart is not an exhaustive list of the characteristics

More information

APPENDIX 4. A. State Courts. Alaska Superior Court. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alabama Circuit Court. Arizona Superior Court

APPENDIX 4. A. State Courts. Alaska Superior Court. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alabama Circuit Court. Arizona Superior Court APPENDIX 4 COURT ABBREVIATIONS This appendix contains abbreviations for federal courts. Abbreviations for state courts can be developed by consulting Appendix 1 and Rule 2 concerning abbreviations and

More information

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER VI OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION

ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER VI OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION If you have questions regarding Product Liability, please contact Bruce Schoumacher via bschoumacher@querrey.com www.querrey.com 2012 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. B. PRODUCT LIABILITY ILLINOIS

More information

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes

More information

Model Regulation Service April 2005 GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE OWNED LIFE INSURANCE

Model Regulation Service April 2005 GUIDELINES ON CORPORATE OWNED LIFE INSURANCE Model Regulation Service April 2005 Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI) is life insurance a corporate employer buys covering one or more employees. With COLI, the employer is generally the applicant,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF GEORGE D. GAMAS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF GEORGE D. GAMAS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Opinion filed February 7, 2002. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-00-01144-CV ANTONIO GARCIA, JR., Appellant V. PALESTINE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, n/k/a MEMORIAL MOTHER FRANCES HOSPITAL,

More information

Default Definitions of Person in State Statutes

Default Definitions of Person in State Statutes Default Definitions of Person in State Statutes State Alabama ALA. CODE 1-1-1 (2014) 1-1-1. Definitions. The following words, whenever they appear in this code, shall have the signification attached to

More information

2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2016 IL App (1st 152359-U SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016 No. 1-15-2359 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

Case 2:13-cv-06555-LMA-MBN Document 371 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. VERSUS No.

Case 2:13-cv-06555-LMA-MBN Document 371 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. VERSUS No. Case 2:13-cv-06555-LMA-MBN Document 371 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL COMARDELLE CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 13-6555 PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE

More information

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under

More information

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THIS MATTER comes on for consideration of DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO Court address: P.O. Box 2980 270 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 DATE FILED: July 29, 2014 2:12 PM CASE NUMBER: 2013CV2249 Phone Number: (719) 452-5279

More information

(129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT

(129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT (129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT To enact sections 2307.951, 2307.952, 2307.953, and 2307.954 of the Revised Code to require claimants in asbestos tort actions

More information

Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342

Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 Case: 1:10-cv-08146 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/29/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:342 TKK USA INC., f/k/a The Thermos Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff,

More information

Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation. Louisiana Supreme Court Restricts Recovery for Asbestos Exposure Claimants

Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation. Louisiana Supreme Court Restricts Recovery for Asbestos Exposure Claimants April, 2003 No. 3 Toxic and Hazardous Substances Litigation In This Issue Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr. is a founding partner of Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore a New Orleans, Louisiana firm that is focused

More information

But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430

But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 But For Causation in Defective Drug and Toxic Exposure Cases: California s Form Jury Instruction CACI 430 By Matt Powers and Charles Lifland Since the California Supreme Court s 1991 decision in Mitchell

More information

!"" July 23, 2009. Ms. Valerie Farwell Ms. Amy Green Mr. Edward Slaughter. Re: Cause No. 2008-15687; Wilhite v. Alcoa.

! July 23, 2009. Ms. Valerie Farwell Ms. Amy Green Mr. Edward Slaughter. Re: Cause No. 2008-15687; Wilhite v. Alcoa. !"" July 23, 2009 "#$#%&$%% Ms. Valerie Farwell Ms. Amy Green Mr. Edward Slaughter Dear Counsel: Re: Cause No. 2008-15687; Wilhite v. Alcoa You will recall that a Motion for Rehearing was filed by the

More information

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013

MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013 MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2013 By: Representative Turner To: Judiciary A HOUSE BILL NO. 529 1 AN ACT TO REQUIRE CLAIMANTS IN ASBESTOS TORT ACTIONS TO MAKE 2 CERTAIN DISCLOSURES PERTAINING

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. v. : No. 12AP-814 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2012-05312) Department of Rehabilitation and :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. v. : No. 12AP-814 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2012-05312) Department of Rehabilitation and : [Cite as Perry v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2013-Ohio-3828.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Alfonsia Perry, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : No. 12AP-814 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2012-05312)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: DOUGLAS B. KING ROBERT J. ORELUP Wooden & McLaughlin Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT E. PAUL Paul, Reich & Myers, P.C. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-12-01365-CV REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION : : Limited to: : Olson, Arland : C.A. No. 09C-12-287 ASB UPON DEFENDANT CBS CORPORATION S MOTION

More information

*** ASBESTOS/MESOTHELIOMA INJURIES, ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS ***

*** ASBESTOS/MESOTHELIOMA INJURIES, ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS *** *** ASBESTOS/MESOTHELIOMA INJURIES, ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS *** Between the years 1940 and 1979, approximately 27.5 million Americans were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos. In addition, it is estimated

More information

Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative. Proposals Addressing Compensation for Asbestos-Related Harms or Death

Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative. Proposals Addressing Compensation for Asbestos-Related Harms or Death Appendix I: Select Legislative Appendix I: Select Federal Legislative is and Mesothelioma Benefits Act H.R. 6906, 93rd 1973). With respect to claims for benefits filed before December 31, 1974, would authorize

More information

Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability

Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability Defending Take-Home Exposure Cases Duty in the Context of Premises and Employer Liability Presented by Deborah K. St. Lawrence Thompson, Counsel Miles & Stockbridge, P.C. Baltimore, Maryland September

More information

A summary and analysis of Borg-Warner is attached.

A summary and analysis of Borg-Warner is attached. According to Andrew Schirrmeister, plaintiffs lawyers specializing in toxic tort litigation are scrambling. On June 8, 2007, in Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 1 the Texas Supreme Court issued a significant

More information

LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT

LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions

More information

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred

to add a number of affirmative defenses, including an allegation that Henry s claim was barred REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed May 11, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00616-CV DOROTHY HENRY, Appellant V. BASSAM ZAHRA, Appellee On Appeal from the

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U. No. 14-1710 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 141710-U SECOND DIVISION November 10, 2015 No. 14-1710 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances

More information

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS NORTHERN DISTRICT. David Moore, for Appellant, and Stone C. Defense for Respondent.

MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS NORTHERN DISTRICT. David Moore, for Appellant, and Stone C. Defense for Respondent. MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS NORTHERN DISTRICT JOHN JONES Defendant-Appellant vs. No. ND-55867 JANE SMITH Plaintiff-Respondent. David Moore, for Appellant, and Stone C. Defense for Respondent. Before O BRIEN,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HOWARD A. SCOTT, EXECUTOR OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT L. SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED AND LAVERNE SCOTT, IN HER OWN RIGHT,

More information

In The NO. 14-99-00494-CV. ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee

In The NO. 14-99-00494-CV. ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee Affirmed and Opinion filed December 21, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-99-00494-CV ALTON SIMMONS, Appellant V. DREW WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria

More information

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD. Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: CHERYL A. PLANCK Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: NORRIS CUNNINGHAM KATHRYN ELIAS CORDELL Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

More information

STATE BY STATE ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES. Sole or Partial Negligence. Alaska X Alaska Stat. 45.45.900. Except for hazardous substances.

STATE BY STATE ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES. Sole or Partial Negligence. Alaska X Alaska Stat. 45.45.900. Except for hazardous substances. State STATE BY STATE ANTI-INDEMNITY STATUTES Sole Negligence Sole or Partial Negligence Closes A.I. Loophole Comments Alabama Alaska Alaska Stat. 45.45.900. Except for hazardous substances. Arizona (Private

More information

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White

THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)

More information

FEAR OF CANCER DAMAGES IN AN FELA OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE TRIAL: INSTRUCTIONS AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

FEAR OF CANCER DAMAGES IN AN FELA OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE TRIAL: INSTRUCTIONS AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE FEAR OF CANCER DAMAGES IN AN FELA OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE TRIAL: INSTRUCTIONS AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE Introduction Occupational disease litigation under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) often

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

More information

Model Regulation Service - January 1993 GUIDELINES ON GIFTS OF LIFE INSURANCE TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS

Model Regulation Service - January 1993 GUIDELINES ON GIFTS OF LIFE INSURANCE TO CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS Model Regulation Service - January 1993 These Guidelines have been prepared for use by state insurance department personnel who may be presented with questions or concerns regarding charitable gifts of

More information

Statutes of Limitation: Kentucky

Statutes of Limitation: Kentucky View the online version at http://us.practicallaw.com/w-000-1784 Statutes of Limitation: Kentucky COLIN H. LINDSAY AND RYAN A. MORRISON, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Q&A guide

More information

workers' compensation benefits under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (WIIA). Long

workers' compensation benefits under the Washington Industrial Insurance Act (WIIA). Long LED COWIJ QP APPEALS 2013 MAR 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHIN AN 8: 39 DIVISION II B ROBERT LONG, deceased, and AILEEN LONG, Petitioner /Beneficiary, No. 43187-4 II - Appellant, V. WASHINGTON

More information

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY as Successor in Interest to the ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, C O M P L A I N T

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY as Successor in Interest to the ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, C O M P L A I N T FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 2/10/2012 9:16:03 AM GERI LYNN SANCHEZ STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF VALENCIA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT KAREN R. SALAZAR, Individually and as Personal Representative

More information

LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO. Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1

LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO. Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 LITIGATION OF PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES IN EXOTIC FORUMS - PUERTO RICO By Francisco J. Colón-Pagán 1 I. OVERVIEW OF PUERTO RICO LEGAL SYSTEM A. Three branches of government B. Judicial Branch 1. Supreme

More information

MEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer

MEMORANDUM. Preface. Brief Answer MEMORANDUM From: Mitchell S. Cohen, Esquire Re: Decisions Governing the Issue of Secondary Exposure Asbestos Cases in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and States of New Jersey and New York Date: 11 November

More information

2015 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION

2015 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2015 WI APP 17 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2014AP923 Complete Title of Case: PAMELA PETER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD O. PETER, V.

More information

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION

FORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action

More information

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Miami - West Palm Beach - Tampa - Key West - Ft. Lauderdale West - Naples Jacksonville Orlando - Pensacola - Bonita Springs - Fort Lauderdale East Medical Malpractice Legal

More information

PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM. Carl Tobias*

PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM. Carl Tobias* PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated

More information

A Bad Moon on the Rise? The Development of Liability for Secondary Exposure To Asbestos

A Bad Moon on the Rise? The Development of Liability for Secondary Exposure To Asbestos Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 22, Number 3 (22.3.15) Feature Article By: Donald Patrick Eckler and Paul A. Ruscheinski

More information

Last updated October 17, 2007

Last updated October 17, 2007 Pro Se Advisory for Immigrants with Multiple Drug Possession Convictions: Instructions for Challenging Whether You Have Been Convicted of an Aggravated Felony Last updated October 17, 2007 This advisory

More information

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against

Alani Golanski, for appellants. Christian H. Gannon, for respondent. A statute requires anyone who brings a lawsuit against ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers

Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers 2014 Granby Street, Suite 200 Norfolk, VA, 23517 (757) 455-0077 (866) 455-6657 (Toll Free) YOUR RIGHTS WHEN YOU ARE INJURED ON THE RAILROAD Cooper Hurley Injury Lawyers 2014

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session CONNIE REDMOND v. WALMART STORES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 13C3247 Joseph P. Binkley,

More information

TEXAS TORT REFORMS Appeal Bond Reform: HB 4 (2003). Asbestos/Silica Litigation Reform: SB 15 (2005).

TEXAS TORT REFORMS Appeal Bond Reform: HB 4 (2003). Asbestos/Silica Litigation Reform: SB 15 (2005). TEXAS TORT REFORMS Appeal Bond Reform: HB 4 (2003). Limits the amount a defendant can be required to pay to secure the right to appeal to the lesser of 50% of a defendant s net worth or $25 million. Provides

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION FRANK G. SCHULTZ and DELORIS SCHULTZ, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. C.A. No. N13C-04-015 ASB AMERICAN BILTRITE,

More information

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAYCOL PRODUCTS LITIGATION MDL No. 1431 (MJD) This Document also relates to: Barbara Ruona, et al., v. Bayer Corporation et al., Case No. 02-872

More information

MINORS AND EQUAL PROTECTION THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF OHIO'S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:

MINORS AND EQUAL PROTECTION THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF OHIO'S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF OHIO'S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: MINORS AND EQUAL PROTECTION A s WITH ALL LAWS, statutes of limitations must apply equally to all persons unless reasonable

More information

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors

Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors By: Joseph B. Carini III & Catherine H. Reiter Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Ltd. Illinois Courts have long

More information

LIABILITY OF AN ATTORNEY FOR NEGLIGENCE IN TITLE EXAMINATION - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO THE CLIENT

LIABILITY OF AN ATTORNEY FOR NEGLIGENCE IN TITLE EXAMINATION - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO THE CLIENT LIABILITY OF AN ATTORNEY FOR NEGLIGENCE IN TITLE EXAMINATION - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO THE CLIENT Generally it is well understood that an attorney is not liable for every mistake or error of

More information

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) February 2010

Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) February 2010 Life Without Parole (JLWOP) February 2010 STATE LWOP Law JLWOP 1 ALABAMA YES 62 0 court Ala. Stat. 13A-6-2 ALASKA No LWOP parole always possible No -- -- - Max. age of 18 yrs. old Alaska Stat. 11.41.100

More information

Navigating the Statute of Limitations in Texas

Navigating the Statute of Limitations in Texas Navigating the Statute of Limitations in Texas Wesley G. Johnson Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214-712 712-9500 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Wes.Johnson@CooperScully.com

More information

CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:10-cv-01132-MJD-FLN Document 106 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation 07-MD-1836 (MJD/FLN) This document relates

More information

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 11, 2015 Session JAY DANIEL, ET AL. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 7087 Joe H. Walker, III,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784. Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-784 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Took no part, Page and Gildea, JJ. In re Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company, Petitioners. Continental

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE April 25, 2011 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE April 25, 2011 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE April 25, 2011 Session NAOMI JEWELL KELLEY v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury

More information

Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011

Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Williams v. University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and

More information

STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 2nd Session of the 53rd Legislature (2012) AS INTRODUCED

STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 2nd Session of the 53rd Legislature (2012) AS INTRODUCED STATE OF OKLAHOMA nd Session of the rd Legislature () SENATE BILL AS INTRODUCED By: Jolley An Act relating to asbestos tort actions; creating the Asbestos Claims Transparency Act; providing short title;

More information

Reed Armstrong Quarterly

Reed Armstrong Quarterly Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors

More information

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE AND LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM LAWS: CITATIONS, BY STATE

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE AND LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM LAWS: CITATIONS, BY STATE ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE AND LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM LAWS: CITATIONS, BY STATE (Laws current as of 12/31/06) Prepared by Lori Stiegel and Ellen Klem of the American Bar Association

More information

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 Page 1 PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. ST. JOHN, et al., Defendants NO. 09-06388 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-CV-622. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAM-480-10)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 10-CV-622. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAM-480-10) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 12/09/2005 STATE FARM v. BROWN Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-13737. D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG Case: 11-13737 Date Filed: 11/06/2012 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-13737 [DO NOT PUBLISH] D.C. Docket Nos. 8:10-cv-02360-VMC ; 8:90-bk-10016-PMG In

More information

SURVEY OF THE CURRENT INSURANCE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR AFFINITY MARKETIG 1 A

SURVEY OF THE CURRENT INSURANCE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR AFFINITY MARKETIG 1 A SURVEY OF THE CURRENT INSURANCE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR AFFINITY MARKETIG ARRANGEMENTS (FORC Journal: Vol. 23 Edition 4 - Winter 2012) Kevin G. Fitzgerald, Esq. (414) 297-5841 N. Wesley Strickland (850)

More information

A BILL for AN ACT. Serial 137 Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill 2003 Dr Toyne

A BILL for AN ACT. Serial 137 Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill 2003 Dr Toyne Serial 137 Personal Injuries (Civil Claims) Bill 2003 Dr Toyne A BILL for AN ACT to provide for the economical and early resolution of claims for damages for personal injuries before proceedings are commenced,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: BRYCE H. BENNETT, JR. ROBERT C. BRANDT Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KAREN NEISWINGER Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT

More information

PRODUCT LIABILITY INSTRUCTIONS. Introduction

PRODUCT LIABILITY INSTRUCTIONS. Introduction Introduction The RAJI (CIVIL) 5th Product Liability Instructions refer only to manufacturers and sellers. These instructions should be expanded when appropriate to include others in the business of placing

More information