McGivney, Kluger & Cook and its clients are always moving forward. This page features recent articles, news releases, and links to sites and blogs, as well as information about upcoming and recent events. Please check back often to see what we and our clients are doing
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
There are perhaps few legal principles as widely debated as the principle of duty. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed him a duty of care.
In a rare turn of events, on April 30 2018, Judge Alice B. Gibney vacated her prior judgment denying G.E.’s motion for summary judgment when presented with a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Order filed by the defeated Defendant.
On April 20, 2018, Judge Harry Calmar, who presides over the asbestos docket in New London Superior Court, granted Defendant, Pefection HY-Test Company’s ("Perfection”), motion to dismiss all claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States, in the Reavis v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., et al. matter.
Baumgartner v. Am. Std., Inc.is an interesting Rhode Island case which applied Ohio law, as the state of Ohio had the most significant relationship to the instant asbestos litigation. 2015 R.I. Super. LEXIS 91 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2015).
In Connecticut, many products liability actions involving asbestos exposure have involved General Dynamics Electric Boat, a subsidiary of the General Dynamics Corporation, which has built submarines for the U.S. Navy for decades in the Town of Groton.
Upstate New York: Defendant’s Motion Granted, Plaintiffs Interrogatory Responses Alone are Insufficient
Mass. Federal Judge Rules that Place of Injury Dictates Applicable State Law in Asbestos Wrongful Death Action
Punitive Damages in Product Liability Actions
“Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.” Massachusetts’s Six-Year Statute of Repose and Asbestos Claims
Does Connecticut Tort Law Permit Medical Monitoring Based on Asbestos Exposure in the Absence of a Present Injury?
“You’re on the Hook”: Rhode Island Superior Court finds Duty of Care Owed in “Secondary Exposure” Claim
Rhode Island Judge Found Plaintiff’s Allegations of Asbestos Exposure Constituted Conjecture Inadequate
Jurisdiction Matters: Personal Jurisidction Challenge in Connecticut Asbestos Case Prevails Under Judge Calmar in New London
Choice of Law Analysis as to Bare Metal Defense in Rhode Island Asbestos Case
“It’s all the Same”: The Connecticut Products Liability Act and Federal Maritime Law in Asbestos Litigation