Schedule/Sessions

Session 1 - Bankruptcy Trust Transparency - Garlock Decision

• Speakers:

• Nina Lynn Caroselli, RiverStone Resources LLC

• Peter Kelso, Roux Associates, Inc.

• Michael Ramirez, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

• Craig Ziolkowski, Resolute Management Inc.

The 2014 Garlock bankruptcy trust decision stunned the legal, business, and political communities.  Federal judge George Hodges ruled that asbestos litigation had been “infected by the manipulation of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers.”  One year later the public release of the discovery data from the Garlock case confirmed (again) what has long been suspected, or known, and cried out for much needed transparency in the asbestos bankruptcy claims process.   Neither the issuance of the Garlock  decision nor the release of the discovery data solved the transparency issue, however. Bankruptcy rules continue to inhibit discovery of bankrupt claims and the fair allocation of liability across both the tort and bankruptcy trust compensation systems.
Some inroads toward creating more transparency between both systems have been made. Thus far, eight states have passed legislation to mandate the production of bankruptcy trust claims prior to trial.  Suits have been filed against several prominent plaintiff law firms under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) for the systematic suppression of evidence in asbestos cases.
 Two years have passed since Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges issued his opinion in In Re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.  The issues are still being litigated; and the impact cannot yet be fully measured.  The Garlock decision and the evidence that supports it should be fully integrated in the litigation process on several levels, including educating the judiciary.
The panel includes representatives from the defense bar, an expert whose firm (and he) worked on the Garlock estimation matter, a claims attorney from the DII Asbestos Trust, and two senior claims executives.   They will discuss the Garlock decision, the subsequent release of the discovery data, and the impact.  They will identify a number of practical issues arising therefrom.  Moreover, they will discuss what the defense bar, defendants, and claims professionals can do to maximize the information potentially available and stress the importance of seeking the information early in the litigation process.  

Break

Session 2 - Defendants Beware: Daimler Has Not Eliminated the Use of General Jurisdiction for Plaintiffs to Litigate Mass Torts in Out-of-State Destination Venues

• Speakers:

• Steven Tertel, Hotchkiss Insurance Agency

• Campbell E. Wallace, Frilot, LLC

• Gary Zwain, Self Employed

 Like a destination wedding, litigation by out-of-state plaintiffs in a plaintiff-friendly “Destination Venue” is a boon for plaintiffs’ counsel and bane for defendants.  In Daimler, the Supreme Court established a Constitutional standard for all federal and state courts’ exercise of general personal jurisdiction in suits by out-of-state plaintiffs against a defendant outside of its “home” state, i.e, where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.  There are extremely narrow exceptions under Daimler for a federal or state court to exercise general jurisdiction against a defendant outside his “home” state, but “Destination Venues” persist.
Since the Daimler decision in 2013, federal courts have uniformly enforced its mandate, but state courts have not.  State courts’ failures to follow Daimler have perpetuated “Destination Venues,” presenting defendants with multi-plaintiff mass actions that may confuse and prejudice a jury in a single trial and providing plaintiffs’ counsel unfair leverage that they would not have in single-plaintiff lawsuits in the defendant’s “home” state.  This presentation explores strategies and arguments, pro and con, for enforcement Daimler to eliminate “Destination Venues” in state court mass actions and individual lawsuits and force plaintiffs to litigate cases in a defendant’s “home” state.

Break

Session 3 - Identifying, Avoiding, Mitigating, and Insuring Environmental Risk in Construction

• Speakers:

• George Buermann, Goldberg Segalla LLP

• William "Chip" D'Angelo, Self Employed

• Anthony Polini, Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd.

Environmental claims and litigation have been plaguing real estate, construction and development projects for years, resulting in delays, cost overruns, and third-party exposures. Environmental-related claims can arise from not only pollution coverage, but from General Liability, Professional Liability, and Property coverages, as well as through an OCIP or CCIP program. 
As new development is focused on the inner city, waterfront properties, and other historic industrial sites; this trend is not going to decrease anytime soon. Routine contracting practices may yield environmental hazards and these exposures are not restricted to environmental contractors; GCs, CMs, trades, and Owners all have exposure.
This session will explore and present how these issues can be identified and properly addressed during due diligence, pre­construction, insurance and contracting mechanisms. The panel will help the participants understand the technical risks, the market policies available to cover environmental risks and how to structure insurance coverage. They will also explain how the risks can be mitigated and claims avoided.
The panel consists of engineers, consultants, lawyers, and insurance experts who will provide the roadmap for dealing with environmental issues and answer participants’ questions.

Cocktail Networking