Header
about | contact | sitemap | home
Mesothelioma

What is Mesothelioma

Pleural Mesothelioma

Peritoneal Mesothelioma

Pericardial Mesothelioma

Risk Factors

Symptoms

Stages

Asbestosis

Mesothelioma Treatment

Treatment Options

Treatment by stages

Chemotherapy

Medical Procedures

Imaging Scans

Types of Doctors

Clinical Trials

Clinical Trials Directory

Cancer Care Centers

Mesothelioma Specialists

Alternative Therapies

Asbestos

Types of Asbestos

Asbestos Industry

Asbestos History

In the Workplace

Asbestos Legislation

Asbestos Removal

Legal Help

Your Legal Rights

Choosing an Attorney

The Legal Process

Evaluating Your Case

GE Takes $115 Million Expense on Asbestos Cases

February 19, 2007 - Forbes reports that General Electric Company (GE) will record a $115 million after-tax expense in the first quarter of this year after losing a 10-year battle with its insurers in regards to thousands of asbestos claims.

According to the article, “the New York State Court of Appeals upheld lower-court rulings preventing GE from tapping secondary insurance to cover claims brought mostly by individuals exposed to asbestos-insulated turbines.”

A spokesman for the company says that GE has 509,000 thousand asbestos cases pending through 2006 and that they have already paid approximately $500 million to settle claims involving their turbines, which were insulated with asbestos manufactured not by GE but by various asbestos manufacturers.

GE spokesman Gary Sheffer said in a statement that GE was "disappointed in the decision, which is contrary to how the majority of courts have ruled." Sheffer said GE was reviewing its options.

The newspaper account noted that the lawsuit centered on whether GE's asbestos claims should be treated as one incident under its insurance policies issued between 1965 and 1985, or whether each claim should be treated individually. GE was responsible for the first $5 million in coverage on each occurrence. After the first $5 million, GE could access more than $2 billion in secondary insurance.  The court ruled that each claim was a single occurrence.

“GE was attempting to change a long-standing New York law on how the number of occurrences is decided in this context," said Michael Balch, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, who represented one of the insurers. He said GE wanted to consider as one occurrence "400,000-plus cases arising at thousands of sites across the country dating back 70 to 80 years.

 

Free Mesothelioma Information Pack

Mesothelioma Packet Enter your information to receive a free mesothelioma information packet in 24 hours.

First Name:

Last Name:

Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Telephone:

Email Address:

Is it possible you
or someone you
know has
mesothelioma?
Yes   No

frequently asked questions
glossary
job sites

Shipyards

Metal Works

Powerhouses

Other Job Sites

mesothelioma

Current News

Archived News

Michigan Man Sues After Developing Asbestos Cancer Montpelier School Asbestos Scare Over

In recent years, municipal school buildings have been among the leading buildings likel ...

Family Seeks Damages in Asbestos Liability Case

The estate of a Nevada man has filed for damages from 25 co-defendants in asbestos-liab ...

Secretary at Iron Company Develops Mesothelioma

Group Offers Asbestos Removal Kit

Labor Union Searching for Former Shipyard Workers

Support

Coping Process

Managing Pain

Nutrition

For the Caregiver

Feelings After Diagnosis

Dealing with Symptoms

Practical Issues

Relationship Issues

Wills and DNRs

Resources

Thank you for visiting this website which is sponsored by the Law Firm of EARLY, LUDWICK, SWEENEY & STRAUSS, LLC. This website is devoted to the needs of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. The content contained herein was not prepared by medical professionals nor should it be taken as a substitute for medical advice. Additionally, this information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship simply by its viewing. The creation of an attorney-client relationship requires more than viewing this or affiliated websites. Neither the transmission nor receipt of this website material will create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. The material contained herein is general in nature and may not apply to your particular factual or legal circumstances. Online readers should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please read our disclaimer for more information.