Jones noted in his statement to Law360 that the trial court could potentially apply that same reasoning to bar Monsanto from using the WPLA statute of repose defense in the other cases based on offensive collateral estoppel, given that the juries in the latest two trials found the Sky Valley building occupants were harmed within the ‘useful safe life’ of PCBs.
In a case brought by Angela B. Heit, jurors found that Monsanto intentionally misrepresented or concealed facts about its products, causing harm to the plaintiffs; jurors in the case from Angela M. Bard, however, did not reach those questions.
Expert Exposure Calculations
While lawyers for both sides have zeroed in on the Court of Appeals’ handling of the statute of repose, Judge Rogers has suggested that the finding has little significance for cases awaiting trial, given that the jury was already asked to consider it as part of Monsanto’s defense at the past two trials.
During a recent status hearing in one of the Sky Valley cases awaiting trial, the judge said his focus was on the appellate court’s evidentiary findings and noted that he’s now ready to proceed with fine-tuning a plan for future trials.
