We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Paul J. Killion Duane Morris LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 12



San Francisco trial court is first California court to adopt the Wallace & Gale approach to asbestos operations claims *

USA - February 14 2013
In what is the first trial court ruling in California on the issue, to our knowledge, the San Francisco Superior Court on January 31, 2013 issued a…


The California Supreme Court will take another look at Henkel *

USA - January 9 2013
On December 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1506, previously…


The California Supreme Court makes clear assumption of risk applies to more than just sports *

USA - January 9 2013
On December 31, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., __Cal.4th __ (No. S195031 December 31, 2012)…


The California Court of Appeal says nice try to attempt to overturn the California Supreme Court’s Henkel decision based on an 1872 statute *

USA - September 6 2012
On August 30, 2012, Division Three of the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District put to rest a new argument devised by policyholders to attack the California Supreme Court’s seminal consent-to-assignment ruling in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 29 Cal.4th 934 (2003).


Was the Wallace & Gale holding rejected in the API case? *

USA - August 21 2012
Some policyholders cite the Minnesota trial court decision in St. Paul Fire and Marine vs. A.P.I. Inc. (Minn. Dist. Court, Ramsey County, No. C9-02-8084, J. Finley Order dated May 13, 2004) as rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s holding in In re Wallace & Gale Co., 385 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 2004).

Co-authors: Andrew E. Mishkin.


Next »