In a sprawling 163 page opinion issued just last week, the Connecticut Appellate Court addressed, as a matter of first impression, five different issues that will significantly affect the disposition of asbestos, and potentially other, long tail claims in Connecticut. The case, R.T. Vanderbilt Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident and

On May 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals of New York issued its opinion in In re Viking Pump, No. 59, 2016 WL 1735790, and found that “all sums” allocation and vertical exhaustion applied to the insureds’ claims to excess coverage for the asbestos exposure claims filed against them.

In Williams v University of Birmingham [2011] EWCA Civ 1242 the Court of Appeal analysed the correct approach to proving liability in a mesothelioma case. The Court emphasised that the relaxation of normal principles of proof in relation to mesothelioma claims, laid down by the House of Lords in the Fairchild case (Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22), apply only to the need to prove causation. 

The Supreme Court has published its decision in the case of AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate and Others [2011] UKSC 46 in which AXA and other insurers (the Insurers) appealed against the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session regarding the legality of the Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 (the 2009 Act) (please see our previous blog here for further information on that decision).