HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
No
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
no
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

ASBESTOS CASE DISCUSSION
Norgart v. Upjohn Co. in Brumley

Read the discussion of the Norgart v. Upjohn Co. in the appellate decision in Brumley, et. al vs. FDCC California, Inc. In this decedent asbestos cancer case, the plaintiffs appeal the lower court’s decision on the wrongful death claim filed on behalf of the widow and children and the widow’s loss of consortium.

Defendants also argue that Barrington was overruled, or at least undercut, by Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383 (Norgart). In Norgart, a relation-back case decided in the more common statute of limitations context, the court cited a number of cases holding that the statute of limitations defense was “ ‘favored’ ” as well as a few, including Barrington, holding that the defense is “ ‘disfavored.’ ” (Norgart, at p. 396.) The court effectively, if politely, disapproved of this language in each cited case, holding, “Perhaps, to speak more accurately, the affirmative defense based on the statute of limitations should not be characterized by courts as either ‘favored’ or ‘disfavored.’ The two public policies identified above—the one for repose and the other for disposition on the merits—are equally strong, the one being no less important or substantial than the other.” (Ibid.) No further negative mention was made of Barrington.

As discussed above, Barrington was premised largely on (1) the similarity in nature and purpose between statutes of limitation and the three-year rule and (2) the unfair result that would occur if the relation back doctrine were not applied. While the purportedly disfavored nature of the statute of limitations defense was mentioned by the court, it was not the primary motivating force behind the decision. For that reason, while Norgart may have disapproved of one aspect of the reasoning of Barrington, it did not undercut the fundamental premises on which the court’s decision rested.

If you have been diagnosed with an asbestos illness like mesothelioma, lung cancer or asbestosis, please complete the form on this page to get a FREE and prompt review of your case by a leading asbestos attorney. Weitz & Luxenberg is a leading mesothelioma law firm with a substantial history of success in asbestos exposure cases.

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos


IN THIS SECTION
FDCC Asbestos Case doctrine
Asbestos: Barrington Conclusion
asbestos: General Motors
Brumley vs. FDCC
Brumley asbestos case rule
Norgart asbestos case
asbestos case: Relation back


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Lawsuit
Asbestos Litigation
Books and other resources
Brumley asbestos case

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

asbestos: General Motors Relevance of General Motors asbestos case to Brumley vs. FDCC decision
General Motors case cited in Brumley vs. FDCC asbestos decision

FDCC Asbestos Case doctrine Doctrine in Barrington asbestos case discussed in Brumley vs. FDCC
Barrington doctrine cited in Brumley vs. FDCC asbestos decision

Brumley v. FDCC asbestos case Background in asbestos case of Brumley vs. FDCC California
Read background of the Brumley vs. FDCC California asbestos case