(Penn., filed in January of 2015): Arguing that a plaintiff in an asbestos action cannot satisfy the burden of establishing substantial-factor causation by an expert’s ‘cumulative exposure’ theory that the expert concedes is simply an ‘any exposure’ theory by a different name. Also arguing that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas’ mandatory practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases—even where the defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result—is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.
Court ruled against ATRA’s position on November 22, 2016.
The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) is disappointed to learn that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against LTL Management, LLC in a case regarding the […]
This op-ed was originally published by Agri-Pulse. Mass tort litigation has become a multi-billion-dollar industry for trial lawyers over the past several decades as they’ve targeted everything from tobacco and […]
SB 2-A to improve FL property insurance; addresses assignment of benefits, one way attorney fee shifting, third-party bad faith
Arbitrary, excessive punishments result from lack of clarity under some laws
State ranked No. 3 among worst ‘Judicial Hellholes’ in nation with residents paying $1,900 per year in ‘tort tax’
Residents pay ‘tort tax’ of more than $1,010 amid all-time high inflation
