Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s Designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
- Tenth Circuit Clarifies Diligent Prosecution Bar to Citizen Suits under Clean Air Act
- Eleventh Circuit Allows Federal Officer Removal for EPA-Directed Cleanup
- Supreme Court Holds FIFRA Preempts State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claims Challenging EPA-Approved Labels
- California Federal Court Holds Agencies May Be Liable Under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit Provision
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- CISWI
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Farming
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Railroad
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Title V
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Wetlands
- Deeds
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Asbestos.
Last week, the United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held that in the maritime toxic tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires asbestos components to be subsequently incorporated into the product for it to properly function. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, slip op. at 9-10 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2019). The products at issue – shipping components including pumps, blowers, and turbines – required the addition of asbestos insulation or asbestos parts to properly function. The plaintiffs, two Navy veterans, were exposed to asbestos in the shipping components, and alleged that this exposure caused them to develop cancer. Although the Supreme Court’s decision is limited to the maritime toxic tort context, the DeVries decision will nevertheless cause many product manufacturers pause as they consider their obligations for issuing appropriate warnings for products that they know will ultimately have asbestos or other hazardous materials integrated into the product before it reaches an end-user. Read More »
