Emerging Issues Archive
Asbestos News Roundup: 1.10.14 – Get Your Furance Checked for Asbestos
January 10th, 2014. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Hot Air Furnace Asbestos Risk
Just a reminder, as almost all of North America is in a deep freeze—or under several feet of snow right now that if you have an old furnace that has just gone—or you’re thinking or replacing—beware—it could contain asbestos!
While asbestos has been banned from use in furnace gaskets since the 1970s in Canada, and likely the US as well, furnaces purchased and installed before then may still be in operation—they have a lifespan of some 50 years or more.
As the gaskets in hot air furnaces disintegrate with time and wear and tear, they can spread asbestos fibers throughout the house, exposing the inhabitants to long-term exposure and potentially fatal asbestos disease including asbestosis and lung cancer—without them even knowing it. If you suspect your furnace could contain asbestos, get a professional in to take a look at it.
Asbestos Lawsuits
Madison, IL: Georgia-Pacific and John Crane Inc, have been named as defendants by Robert Cowger, personal representative for the heirs and estate of Barbara Cowger, deceased, and her husband Bill Cowger.
According to the lawsuit, Bill Cowger worked as a drywaller from 1963 to 2008 for various contractors. During the course of this employment, his wife was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he worked with and around which were manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by the defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the defendants either knew or should have known the products had a toxic, poisonous and highly damaging effect upon persons inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing them. Barbara Cowger developed lung cancer that ultimately led to her death as a direct and proximate result of one or more of the acts of negligence on the part of the defendants.
The defendants are also accused of several acts of omission amounting to willful and wanton misconduct.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that conspirator defendants (both named and not named) as agents of one another and as co-conspirators, agreed and conspired among themselves and with other asbestos manufacturers, distributors and trade organizations to injure the deceased by willfully conspiring to publish false and misleading reports of the health hazards of asbestos.
Judgments in excess of $50,000 for each of the charges have been entered against the defendants. (madisonrecord.com)
Top 10 Legal News Stories of 2013
January 7th, 2014. By AbiK
Bet you can’t guess what the top legal news story on LawyersandSettlements.com was for 2013 (and no, none of them featured former NYC mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner…).
I’ll take that bet even further—I bet most attorneys, who you’d think would be in the know on these things, couldn’t even guess.
That’s because 2013 turned out to be a pretty interesting year in terms of the top legal news stories our journalists covered. While employment lawsuits—typically involving issues such as unpaid overtime and misclassification, on-the-job discrimination, workers’ comp, and wrongful termination—are always reader faves, in 2013 something strange happened: employment issues did not show up in our top ten news stories. At all.
Go figure, eh?
To be fair, when it came to content posted other than legal news articles (i.e., emerging issues, settlements, lawsuits filed), employment settlements drew the most readers. But it was health-related issues that drove readers’ interest when it came to articles and interviews. Here’s how the year’s top ten legal news stories played out (as measured by number of clicks the articles published in 2013 received):
1. Denied Disability: Social Security Recognizes Fibromyalgia
2. Health Canada Documents Link Yasmin and Yaz to Deaths
3. Are Fen-Phen Pills Back? You Would be Half-Right…
4. New York State Cracks Down on Illegal Internet Payday Loans
5. Mirena User Suffers Miscarriage, Now Filing Mirena Lawsuit
6. Mirena Side Effects Lead to Early Hysterectomy for Young Plaintiff
7. Monster Caffeine Levels: When Too Much Energy Isn’t Good for You
8. Junior Hockey League Player Filing Ulcerative Colitis Accutane Lawsuit
9. Yasmin Birth Control Suspected in Deaths of Canadian Teens
10. Mesothelioma Victim Awarded $8 Million
And if you’re wondering what the number one legal news story was for 2012…here’s that one (and, you guessed it, it was about a wage and hour lawsuit, the ‘Lunch Break Lawsuit‘ (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court))
Asbestos News Roundup: 12.12.13 – Cigarettes & Asbestos Risk
December 12th, 2013. By LucyC
A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.
Cigarettes & Asbestos Risk
It is hard to think of anything that could make cigarettes more dangerous, but back in the 1950s, certain cigarettes actually contained asbestos in their filters. Those asbestos-containing cigarettes have led to lawsuits alleging mesothelioma and asbestosis disease, either on the part of people who smoked the cigarettes or those who worked in the factory that supplied the filters. Other lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos fibers resulting in asbestosis lung disease are still pending.
According to Daily Business Review (9/19/13), Richard Delisle was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal condition linked to asbestos exposure, in 2012. He alleges that his smoking of Kent cigarettes, which reportedly used a filter that contained asbestos, contributed to his developing mesothelioma. Also included as defendants in the trial were a paper mill company where Delisle was employed and the manufacturer of the filters used in the Kent cigarettes.
A jury found the cigarette maker, Lorillard, and the maker of the filters each 22 percent responsible for Delisle’s condition, with another 16 percent fault given to the paper company. The final 40 percent was against other defendants. In all, the jury awarded Delisle $8 million, with Lorillard paying $3.52 million as a result of an indemnity agreement between Lorillard and the maker of the filter manufacturer.
Asbestos Lawsuits
Philadelphia, PA: A$2.3 million award in an asbestos mass tort case has been upheld by a trial court judge in Philadelphia. Common Pleas Court Judge Mark I. Bernstein refused to throw out the multi-million dollar verdict against Crane Co., DAP Inc., Duro Dyne Corp., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear Canada Inc., which had been reached following a jury trial in late February, the Pennsylvania record reportss.
Charlotte Vinciguerra filed her asbestos lawsuit on behalf of her late husband, Frank Vinciguerra, who died from malignant mesothelioma on November 3, 2010.
Mrs. Vinciguerra filed suit in June 2012, citing numerous companies as defendants, many of whom were dismissed pre-trial. The lawsuit alleged that Mr. Vinciguerra developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos at work as a sheet metal helper and sheet metal mechanic for E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. from 1951 to 1985. Frank Vinciguerra was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in the summer of 2010, according to court records.
Mrs. Vinciguerra alleged that E.I. DuPont failed to exercise reasonable care to protect her husband and others from the hazardous, dangerous and harmful conditions that existed at the property, according to the lawsuit.
The defendants claimed, in their attempt to get a new trial, that the trial judge allowed the plaintiff’s expert witness to testify that “each and every breath” and “every exposure” to asbestos-containing fiber was causative of Frank Vinciguerra’s injuries, in violation of precedence set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC. However, Judge Bernstein wrote that none of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses ever offered this opinion during the course of the litigation.
During the trial, Dr. Steven Markowitz, an occupational and environmental medicine expert, testified that it was his opinion that Frank Vinciguerra’s exposure to asbestos likely caused the man’s disease.
According to court records, Markowitz explained that there is a dose-response relationship in asbestos disease, and concepts of cumulative exposure to asbestos.
Markowitz’s testimony was based upon his individual analysis of the specific factors in Vinciguerra’s condition, was offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and was “fully subject to cross-examination,” Judge Bernstein wrote. The Judge also noted that Markowitz’s testimony clearly explained “that it is the cumulative effect which causes the disease.”
The total verdict for the plaintiff is $2,286,376.44. (pennrecord.com)
Storage Wars Lawsuit & the Dark Side of Storage Auctions
October 21st, 2013. By AbiK
Got so much sh*t you need a storage locker? Well, understandably, sheer consumption isn’t the only reason why a lot of folks put their stuff in storage—there are many reasons, including some that are prime material for a “Judge Judy” episode or two. But the reasons for removing the stuff from storage? Well, for some, the reason winds up being an inability to pay their storage locker rent. Never mind why the rent can’t be paid—the bottom line is that the storage facility basically holds the storage locker contents as a form of collateral. And if you’re not paying rent, well then, the self-storage company is ready, able and willing to make some cash off of your precious belongings—by auctioning them off. And, in many instances, they have a right to…but…we’ll get to that later.
Surely you’ve heard of “Storage Wars”?—the popular reality tv show on A&E. Auctioning storage locker contents is the premise of the entire show. And, of course, being reality tv, there is suspense and excitement—and a few tense arguments thrown in for good measure.
That brings us to the lawsuit recently filed by “Storage Wars” former star buyer, Dave Hester (aka “the mogul”). His lawsuit was originally filed in December, 2012, against A&E, claiming that the production company actually staged many of the auctions with goods that were not originally in the featured storage lockers. Basically, he claimed that A&E planted more valuable goods into the featured lockers in order to falsely drum up excitement (and, therefore, more viewers) for the program.
That lawsuit was eventually thrown out, with the judge deeming what A&E chooses to highlight on the show a matter of free speech.
Ahh, but the story, and the lawsuit, doesn’t end there. Hester was let go. According to a report over at The Wrap, Hester’s got a retooled lawsuit and is now arguing wrongful termination, alleging he was fired over his claims that the show was rigged.
The outcome of Hester’s lawsuit remains to be seen. But rigged locker contents or not, the lawsuit has put focus on the practice of storage locker auctions—and wrongful auctions—in general: what are they and why do they happen? “Storage Wars” makes storage locker auctions seem like some unclaimed freight or abandoned merchandise sale. Unfortunately, for some, that’s not quite how things happen—they haven’t quite abandoned their stuff; they simply can’t (or don’t) make the rent payments. And in some instances, the storage facility has simply auctioned off the wrong person’s stuff. Yes, it’s happened…
Example: Dubey v. Public Storage. Here’s an excerpt from court documents on that one:
“Kitchen [former storage facility property manager] told Dubey that her property had been auctioned off. She told Dubey that her rent had not been paid and that Metropublic records showed that there was $191 in past-due rent for unit E-11. However, unit E-11 was rented to someone by the name of Maria Cruz, and Dubey’s rental agreement showed that her unit was C-10. Cruz’s rental agreement had a computer-generated designation of unit number E-12. Such unit number had been scratched out and next to it, handwritten, was the number E-11.”
In Dubey’s case, she showed up at her rental storage locker one day to find it inaccessible. When the operator opened it, it was empty—except for some remaining debris, remnants of Dubey’s belongings. Needless to say, Dubey was a bit taken back and things wound up in court.
In fairness, if a self-storage facility plays by the rules, they do have a contractual right to move to an auction. But, the key is they have to play by the rules. The “rules” in this case, are state lien laws.
Lien laws regulate all aspects of when and how storage unit contents can be auctioned. They cover everything from when a storage operator can replace the lock on a unit, to how a renter is sent default notices, to how long the renter has to ‘make good’ on his payments, to how and when the operator can publish an advertisement for an auction.
For example, recently new legislation went into effect in Nevada regarding how a storage facility operator must notify a tenant about being in default. Nevada self-storage facility operators may now notify tenants about impending lien procedures by email, as well as assess late fees and deny access to tenants in default after 10 days. If there is no confirmation of the email, a second notice must be sent by verified mail to the last known address of the tenant.
While there are many legitimate storage auctions, some are not. There are rules to be played by and operators need to follow those rules before they auction off storage locker contents. And if you’ve got stuff in storage, it’s worth it to not only read your contract closely, but also check out your state’s self-storage lien laws; you can do that online.
8 Things an Exempt Job Status Deprives you of…
October 15th, 2013. By AbiK
A lot of questions we receive here at LawyersandSettlements.com have to do with employment…things like what counts as on-the-job harassment, whether or not someone is owed overtime pay, and questions about wrongful termination. One of the trickiest areas of employment though has to do with misclassification—i.e., whether someone’s position is considered exempt or non-exempt. We discuss misclassification in greater detail on our Unpaid Overtime-Employment info hub on our website. But beyond what most people consider to be the difference between exempt and non-exempt—that exempt jobs don’t qualify for overtime pay while non-exempt ones do—there are other things you should be aware of if you’ve recently been switched over or promoted into an exempt position.
Exempt positions tend to be ones that pay a salary rather than an hourly rate. For many, the chance for what could be a higher rate of pay and no longer “working on the clock” makes pursuing exempt positions worth the trip. Here though are eight protections that an exempt job status deprives employees of—provided by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (you can find this info at your own state’s department of labor).
8 Things an Exempt Job Status Deprives you of Protection for…
- overtime premium;
- minimum wage;
- reporting time pay;
- requirement of records under the IWC Orders (but not records required by the Labor Code);
- requirement that employer furnish uniforms and equipment (except, of course, that any expenditure by an employee is recoverable under CA Labor Code Section 2802).
- requirement that meals and lodging amounts be limited;
- meal period requirement;
- rest period requirement;
Find us on
Archive by Category
- Accidents (24)
- Airlines (9)
- Asbestos Mesothelioma (262)
- Automotive (25)
- Celebrity (14)
- Class Action (84)
- Complaints/Comments (15)
- Consumer Fraud (84)
- Contest (2)
- Court of Public Opinion (5)
- Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See (61)
- Criminal Law (4)
- Defective Products (111)
- DePuy ASR Hip Recall (2)
- Discrimination (22)
- Drugs/Medical (248)
- Elder Care Abuse (4)
- Emerging Issues (462)
- Employment (54)
- Environment (52)
- Financial (28)
- Food Illness (15)
- Human/Civil Rights (4)
- Insecurities (5)
- Insurance (16)
- Intellectual Property (16)
- Internet/E-commerce (19)
- lawsuits (161)
- Lawyers (20)
- Lawyers Giving Back (43)
- Lex Levity (10)
- Personal Injury (106)
- Pleading Ignorance (53)
- Real Estate (2)
- Recall (6)
- Scam (3)
- Securities (13)
- Settlement (81)
- Tort Reform (2)
- Totally Tortelicious (81)
- Veterans (11)
- Whistleblower (9)