When Donald and Nancy Reynolds' asbestos case went to the jury, the Reynolds, the judge and defendant Niagara Insulations knew of the narrow "high-low" agreement between the Reynolds and Niagara. But co-defendant Garlock Sealing Technologies was left in the dark, and it appealed the $3.75 million verdict. A New York appellate court found that without "evidence of collusion between Niagara and plaintiffs to the detriment of Garlock," the failure to disclose the agreement didn't mandate reversal.
October 06, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
When Donald and Nancy Reynolds’ asbestos-exposure case went to the jury, all of the parties — the Reynolds, the judge, defendant Niagara Insulations — knew of the existence of a narrow “high-low” agreement between the Reynolds and Niagara.
Only co-defendant Garlock Sealing Technologies was left in the dark.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
