STORY FROM: Benzene & Emerging Toxic Torts Litigation

Benzene Defendant Defends Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Maintains Company Never Assumed Operations of Predecessor

PITTSBURGH –– A defendant named in an aromatic hydrocarbon exposure suit has filed a reply brief supporting its motion for judgment on the pleadings, maintaining that “there is no basis for liability merely because one company assumed the operations of another company.”

In an April 10 reply brief filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, defendant Burnishine Graphic Products refuted the plaintiffs’ position that the motion should be denied since the defendant has not provided the entire asset purchase agreement, arguing that the issue of successor liability is not appropriate for discovery.

Evelyn J. Hamilton ...

Associated Documents
Reply Brief

Registered User Login