Day 1 - Monday, May 21, 2018

7:30
Registration and Continental Breakfast
8:00
Co-Chairs’ Welcoming Remarks
8:15
The State of the Asbestos Market: An Overview of Key Filing Trends and Rulings
9:30
An Insider’s View on Keeping Legal Costs in Asbestos Cases in Check
10:45
Morning Coffee Break
11:00
Examining the Resurgence of Personal Jurisdictional Challenges Impacting Asbestos Cases in the Wake of BMS
12:00
Networking Lunch for Speakers and Attendees
1:00

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

It’s Not Just Lung Cancer or Mesothelioma Anymore: Introducing a New Class of Asbestos Plaintiffs with “Other Cancers”
1:45

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

Talc Litigation Update: A Study of the Latest Cases Concerning Talc Minerals and Asbestos Contaminated Talc and Their Alleged Carcinogenic Properties
2:30

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

“The Meso Gene”: Evaluating Predispositions to Certain Types of Cancer
3:30
Afternoon Refreshment Break
3:45

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

“Take Home” Exposure: Evaluating the Consequences of Bringing Asbestos from the Workplace to the Home
4:45
Insurance Coverage Tell All: Everything Coverage Counsel Needs to Know for Handling Asbestos Claims
5:30
Conference Adjourns

Day 2 - Tuesday, May 22, 2018

7:30
Continental Breakfast
8:00
Co-Chairs’ Opening Remarks and Recap of Day 1
8:15
The View From The Bench: The Judges Speak on the Evolving Landscape of Asbestos Litigation
9:30
Pushing the Boundaries of Transparency Surrounding Bankruptcy Trusts
10:30
Morning Coffee Break
10:45

THEORIES OF LIABILITY

Connections and Correlations: Exploring Theories of Liability Based on Causal Links between Lung Cancer, Smoking, and Asbestos Exposure
11:45

THEORIES OF LIABILITY

The Science and Theories of Liability Behind “Each and Every”, “Single Fiber”, and “Cumulative” Exposure
12:45
Networking Lunch for Speakers and Attendees
2:00
Demanding Punitive Damages for Latent Asbestos Exposure and Blurring the Lines of the Standard of Care
2:45
Afternoon Refreshment Break
3:00
Taking a New Look at the “Bare Metal” Defense Argument
4:00
Conference Ends

Day 1 - Monday, May 21, 2018

7:30
Registration and Continental Breakfast
8:00
Co-Chairs’ Welcoming Remarks

Jonathan M. Lively
Shareholder
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)

Jayme C. Long
Partner
Dentons (Los Angeles, CA)

8:15
The State of the Asbestos Market: An Overview of Key Filing Trends and Rulings

Joseph W. Belluck
Founding Partner
Belluck & Fox, L.L.P. (New York, NY)

Raymond R. Fournie
Partner
Armonstrong Teasdale (St. Louis, MO)

Craig T. Liljestrand
Capital Partner
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP (Chicago, IL)

Jayme C. Long
Partner
Dentons (Los Angeles, CA)

In this session, top outside counsel from asbestos hotbed states will provide an in-depth examination of the year’s greatest challenges in the asbestos arena and recommendations for how practitioners can update their litigation strategies in response to the new developments going forward.

Topics of discussion will include:

  • Examining the latest filing trends and tactics in asbestos litigation
  • Surveying asbestos hotbed states and understanding the impact of jurisdiction challenges in these forums
  • Assessing new theories of liability and causation in this area
  • Analyzing damages awards trends
  • Identifying new challenges to expert witness testimony

9:30
An Insider’s View on Keeping Legal Costs in Asbestos Cases in Check

Paul Slater
Senior Counsel of Corporate Environmental Programs
General Electric (Fairfield, CT)

Rick Schlegel
Assistant General Counsel
Exelon (Philadelphia, PA)

Erin Voyik
Claims/Legal Counsel
Riverstone Claims Management (Manchester, NH)

MODERATOR

Ingrid Campagne
Partner
Walsworth WFBM, LLP (San Francisco, CA)

  • Developing cost saving strategies (indemnity vs. defense costs) in asbestos matters
  • Ensuring all players (client, carrier, national counsel, and local counsel) are on the same page with strategy
  • Weighing the cost of trial against settlement
  • Developing relationships with both defense and plaintiff counsel and understanding the economic importance of these relationships in handling and resolving cases
  • Understanding how the wider implementation of mediation is driving up settlement costs
  • Outlining a “how to” guide on reducing costs on defending cases, preparing for trial, and keeping costs low without compromising your client’s interest

10:45
Morning Coffee Break
11:00
Examining the Resurgence of Personal Jurisdictional Challenges Impacting Asbestos Cases in the Wake of BMS

Tracy Cowan
Partner
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP (St. Louis, MO)

Michael W. Drumke
Partner
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP (Chicago, IL)

  • Reviewing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Daimler and Goodyear, and more recently BMS and BNSF on personal jurisdiction
  • Examining the criteria necessary for establishing jurisdiction under these cases
  • Understanding where the lower courts are heading after BMS and BNSF
  • Resolving personal jurisdiction challenges when plaintiffs allege multiple exposure at different locations
  • Exploring the phenomenon of plaintiffs refiling cases in anticipation of cases which were dismissed based on lack of personal jurisdiction

12:00
Networking Lunch for Speakers and Attendees
1:00

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

It’s Not Just Lung Cancer or Mesothelioma Anymore: Introducing a New Class of Asbestos Plaintiffs with “Other Cancers”

Kevin E. Hexstall
Shareholder
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin (Philadelphia, PA)

Jason Waters
Partner
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP (McLean, VA)

For a long time, mesothelioma and lung cancers were predominantly linked to asbestos exposure. Recently, the tides have changed. Kidney, stomach, esophagus, ovarian, and other cancers, not typically associated with asbestos exposure, have been making the rounds in asbestos cases. Trials associated with these “other cancers” and the verdicts awarded to these new classes of plaintiffs demonstrate the evolution of asbestos litigation in various jurisdictions.

Topics to be discussed in this session include:

  • Explaining the new wave of “other cancer” litigation and the causal link with asbestos exposure
  • Understanding how the courts are handling these types of litigation
  • Interpreting the verdicts associated with these types of cases and how the juries are reacting to newer plaintiffs, science, medicine, and theories of liability
  • Relying on epidemiological studies or case control studies that have proven a link/not proven a link with asbestos exposure
  • Proving the latency period between first asbestos exposure and the link with “other cancers”
  • Placing a spotlight on the troublesome rise of kidney cancer cases and comparing/contrasting how different jurisdictions are handling these types of cases

1:45

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

Talc Litigation Update: A Study of the Latest Cases Concerning Talc Minerals and Asbestos Contaminated Talc and Their Alleged Carcinogenic Properties

Jonathan M. Lively
Shareholder
Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)

Susan M. Valinis
Partner
Reilly, Janiczek, McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, P.C. (Philadelphia, PA)

Joseph J. Welter Esq.
Partner
Goldberg Segalla (Buffalo, NY)

  • Examining the newest aspect of talc litigation in different jurisdictions
  • Revisiting the seminal Johnson & Johnson cases on ovarian cancer and understanding where these types of cases are heading
    • Understanding how some of the Johnson & Johnson verdicts were overturned based on personal jurisdiction
    • Comparing and contrasting the Johnson & Johnson cases and other ovarian cancer cases in different jurisdictions
  • Understanding the science, medicine, and theory behind ovarian and talc cases
    • Preparing a Daubert and Frye analysis on expert testimony and opinion in talc cases
  • Interpreting the Herford case involving cosmetic talc and peritoneal mesothelioma
  • Determining whether women can get mesothelioma from cosmetic talc and understanding the science behind this claim

2:30

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

“The Meso Gene”: Evaluating Predispositions to Certain Types of Cancer

Dr. Allan Feingold

Feingold Medical Legal (Miami, FL)

David H. Schwartz, PhD
Head of Scientific Support to Counsel
Innovative Science Solutions, LLC (Morristown, NJ)

  • Expanding the scientific limits of epidemiology as applied to specific causation in mesothelioma cases
  • Exploring the trends regarding the incidence of mesothelioma in different jurisdictions
  • Requiring plaintiffs to test for certain genes including BAP1
  • Identifying newer genes and related scientific studies
  • Determining whether there is a “meso gene” that makes plaintiffs susceptible to certain types of cancer
    • Combating the “but for” argument made by plaintiffs: “but for defendant’s product, I would not have contracted the disease”
  • Understanding idiopathic mesothelioma in individuals with occupation based exposure vs. the population of individuals with little or no exposure to asbestos
  • Analyzing trends in younger females diagnosed with mesothelioma

3:30
Afternoon Refreshment Break
3:45

NEW AND EVOLVING DISEASE CLAIMS

“Take Home” Exposure: Evaluating the Consequences of Bringing Asbestos from the Workplace to the Home

Brenda Baum
Partner
HeplerBroom LLC (Edwardsville, IL)

Chris Bruni
Partner
Sinuni Bruni (San Francisco, CA)

Megan Cook
Shareholder
Bullivant Houser Bailey PC (Portland, OR)

Michael J. Crist
Partner
DLD Lawyers (Fort Lauderdale, FL)

  • Explaining the sharp rise and increase of take home exposure cases in different jurisdictions
  • Successfully defending and managing take home exposure cases
  • Interpreting the California rule on “regular family member” of the household
  • Determining whether a supplier/manufacturer of an asbestos containing product owed a duty of care to the spouse of an employee who worked at a facility where the supplier/manufacturer’s product was used
  • Understanding the Delaware Superior Court ruling in Ramsey extending Price and Riedel rulings of no duty owed for alleged take-home asbestos exposures from a supplier/ manufacturer
  • Establishing the casual link between the employer and the household member
  • Confirming whether the employer owed a duty to warn the household member of the asbestos exposure

4:45
Insurance Coverage Tell All: Everything Coverage Counsel Needs to Know for Handling Asbestos Claims

Leslie A. Davis
Partner
Crowell & Moring LLP (Washington, D.C.)

Benedict M. Lenhart
Partner
Covington & Burling LLP (Washington, D.C.)

  • Reviewing the latest on loss portfolio transfers, retroactive reinsurance, and legacy insurance liabilities
  • Consolidating insurance companies through a series of loss portfolio transfers (“LPTs”) and the effect on discovery, settlement, and trial strategy
  • Understanding long-tail losses in the asbestos claims perspective
  • Examining how trigger of coverage works in jurisdictions where asbestos bodily injury liabilities arise from mesothelioma and cancer cases
  • Interpreting the Viking Pump decision related to all sums vs. pro-rata method used for asbestos claims

5:30
Conference Adjourns

Day 2 - Tuesday, May 22, 2018

7:30
Continental Breakfast
8:00
Co-Chairs’ Opening Remarks and Recap of Day 1
8:15
The View From The Bench: The Judges Speak on the Evolving Landscape of Asbestos Litigation

Hon. Barbara Jaffe

Supreme Court, Civil County, New York County (New York, NY)

Hon. Daniel Lynch
State of Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County (Chicago, IL)

Hon. Robert B. Freedman (Ret.)

Neutral, JAMS (San Francisco, CA)

MODERATOR:

Philip R. Matthews
Partner
Duane Morris LLP (San Francisco, CA)

In this session, experienced judges will explore the evolving landscape of asbestos litigation. They will provide insights on so-called “hellhole” jurisdictions and hotbed states to give practitioners an idea of where the next wave of litigation will surface. They will also explore common dilemmas with expert testimony, Daubert/Frye motions, and the resulting challenges. Attend this session and understand how asbestos litigation unravels in the courtroom – as well as how to correct this unravelling from the vantage point of experienced judges who handle these cases on a daily basis.

9:30
Pushing the Boundaries of Transparency Surrounding Bankruptcy Trusts

Mark Behrens
Partner
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Washington, D.C.)

Charles McGivney
Managing Partner, Co-Principal
McGivney, Kluger, & Cook, P.C. (Florham Park, NJ)

  • Update on the status of bankruptcy trusts following Garlock and now Best Wall/Georgia Pacific
  • Understanding the impact of Georgia Pacific restructuring asbestos liability into its subsidiary Best Wall and how this may evolve into another Garlock
  • Calculating the value of claims made through bankruptcy trusts
    • Formulating payment percentages
  • Exploring the option of federal intervention in addition to the federal monitor of the trust
  • Explaining the push to have federal legislation on greater transparency in bankruptcy trusts
  • Combating claims that plaintiffs are taking money from the trusts without oversight
  • Providing an explanation for cases taken on a contingency basis and how this may cast doubt on attorneys’ fees charged to clients

10:30
Morning Coffee Break
10:45

THEORIES OF LIABILITY

Connections and Correlations: Exploring Theories of Liability Based on Causal Links between Lung Cancer, Smoking, and Asbestos Exposure

Kay Baxter
Partner
Cosmich, Simmons & Brown, PLLC (New Orleans, LA)

Amy Madl PhD, DABT
Senior Principal Health Scientist
Cardno (Aliso Viejo, CA)

  • Re-analyzing the science that supports and that which does not support the theory that lung cancer is caused by asbestos
  • Calculating the settlement value in lung cancer cases and the increased cost of defending these cases
  • Understanding the complications in lung cancer cases where the plaintiffs are lifelong smokers
  • Examining the impact of medical criteria statutes (MCSs) on lung cancer cases
  • Factoring in plaintiffs who claim asbestos exposure but were former smokers before the litigation
  • Establishing the connection or lack of connection between smoking, asbestos, and lung cancer to juries and how they may be perceived
  • Addressing the scientific and medical element of proving causation in lung cancer cases
  • Analyzing the theories of liability on low dose exposure causes an attribution to lung cancer in smokers

11:45

THEORIES OF LIABILITY

The Science and Theories of Liability Behind “Each and Every”, “Single Fiber”, and “Cumulative” Exposure

Knight S. Anderson
Partner
Tucker Ellis LLP (Cleveland, OH)

Mark D. Sayre
Partner
Foley & Mansfield

Jennifer L. Leonardi
Partner
Barclay Damon, LLP

  • Examining the trends with filings related to “each and every”, “single fiber” , and “cumulative” exposure
  • Establishing Daubert/Frye motions related to these theories of liability and how they impact the arguments plaintiffs make
  • Interpreting the 7th Circuit’s Krick, decision on whether the “cumulative” exposure is equivalent to “each and every” exposure
  • Exploring the scientific and medical updates on the viability of each of these theories
  • Addressing the reliability of each of these theories when presented during trial
  • Admitting evidence related to these theories during litigation

12:45
Networking Lunch for Speakers and Attendees
2:00
Demanding Punitive Damages for Latent Asbestos Exposure and Blurring the Lines of the Standard of Care

Lisa Perrochet
Partner
Horvitz & Levy LLP (Burbank, CA)

Tara L. Pehush
Partner
K&L Gates LLP

  • Defining the appropriate standard of care
    • Reckless disregard
    • Negligence
  • Determining whether punitive damages should be awarded despite asbestos exposure occurring 30 or more years ago
  • Countering the combined claim of reckless disregard and the negligence standard
  • Anticipating the perception of the jurors who fail to delineate between the two standards
  • Interpreting the New York CMO revised in June 2017 which took away the deferral of punitive damages
  • Understanding the impact of the dissolution of MDLs freeing up federal litigation and how this impacts punitive damages

2:45
Afternoon Refreshment Break
3:00
Taking a New Look at the “Bare Metal” Defense Argument

Donald R. Kinsley
Director
Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy LLC (Wilmington, DE)

Jason M. Saul
Partner
Cetrulo LLP (Boston, MA)

  • Exploring litigation nuances with regard to bare metal defendants
  • Determining whether defendants who originally manufactured bare metal products that did not contain asbestos but were later altered to contain asbestos are liable
  • Analyzing the arguments made in the DeVries case and the “foreseeability argument”
    • Comparing and contrasting the DeVries case with the O’Neill and Bratton case
    • Interpreting how other courts in different jurisdictions are holding on the “foreseeability argument”

4:00
Conference Ends