In Australian asbestos litigation, a recent $1.15 million jury verdict against James Hardie is reported here. The suit was by a former employee who developed mesothelioma. The key excerpts state: "A Victorian Supreme Court jury has awarded compensation of more than $1 million to a man exposed to asbestos nearly 40 years ago. Eric King, 62, developed mesothelioma after he was exposed to asbestos at a James Hardie factory in Western Australia in 1972. Mr King’s lawyer, Andrew D
It’s back to Australia. There, an important new appellate court opinion affirms a verdict for a brake mechanic who won a trial court judgment that his mesothelioma was caused by inhalation of chrysotile asbestos fibers from automotive brake linings. A popular press article is here regarding the plaintiff, John Booth. The appellate opinion is here. The trial court opinion is here. The appellate court opinion is noteworthy in multiple ways, and not all are covered here. Of not
Estimates and disclosure of contingent risks are front and center these days in various contexts. Thus, asbestos-specific estimates and disclosures are prominently mentioned in a new Australian appellate decision in CSR. The opinion was issued at the end of last week, and provides some narrow guidance on solvent schemes of arrangement for companies facing asbestos claiming. A prior post here describes the trial court litigation regarding the efforts of CSR, an Australian bu
Look to the right under "James Hardie" for prior posts regarding legal issues related to James Hardie’s efforts to use a private foundation to resolve asbestos claims, and related claims against officers and directors that ended in convictions. Appeals are now in argument for two weeks or so. Popular press articles on the appeal are here and here. #Australia
Here is an article updating this prior post on the effort to amend “collusion” claims against James Hardie and CSR in an asbestos personal injury trial. In short, the court denied the motion to amend on the eve of trial in this particular case, but is said to have indicated that similar amendments might be allowed in other cases not so close to trial. See the full text below.
_________________________________________________________________________ Judge denies late changes
The asbestos litigation pot continues to boil in Australia. Over the last couple of weeks, CSR was denied the opportunity to split its business, a topic I keep hoping to get to, but life is busy. For now, here is a new article about plaintiff’s seeking to amend a complaint to seek to prove up purported collusion between Hardie and CSR. How much does that sound like US litigation ? The text also is pasted below. ________________________________________________________________
Back to Australia, asbestos and James Hardie. As described in this prior post, a rather dry paper by KPMG describes the history of James Hardie and its many intersections with asbestos and asbestos-containing products. That dry look is of course needed and appropriate in the sense that decisions need to be made based on technical information. There are other sides to the story. A new expose/investigative journalism book is out regarding James Hardie. A book review is set out