Flight Attendants Who Blamed Uniforms for their Health Issues Win Lawsuit Against Clothing Company

A jury in California ruled that a clothing company should pay more than $1 million to four American Airlines flight attendants who blamed chemicals used in the production of their uniforms for causing a variety of ailments including rashes, headaches and breathing problems.

The verdict last week could be just the tip of the iceberg: Lawyers say they represent more than 400 other flight attendants who are making the same claims against the uniform maker.

The judge has not affirmed the jury`s decision. A lawyer for the flight attendants called that step a technicality. The uniform maker`s lawyers declined to say whether they will appeal.

American gave new uniforms to flight attendants in 2016, and many were happy to get them after a decade wearing the same outfit. Complaints soon followed, however.

“I would wake up and my eyes would be completely swollen. I looked like I had been in a boxing match,” says Tracey Silver-Charan. “I was unable to breathe. I often felt like I was going to pass out on the job. I was coming home and my husband was running me to the urgent care.”

American gave flight attendants the option of wearing their old uniforms, or even picking out an outfit at Macy`s or JCPenney, said Silver-Charan, a Los Angeles-based flight attendant who has been in the field for 37 years.

Silver-Charan is part of a group of flight attendants who sued in 2017, and she was among four involved in the bellwether trial in Alameda County Superior Court near San Francisco to see how a jury would view the case.

The jury decided that the uniforms provided by Twin Hill Acquisition Co. were a “substantial factor in causing harm” to the flight attendants. However, jurors said the company was not negligent in its design of the garments nor in failing to recall them when complaints began to pour in.

“It`s been a long road, but we`re very happy with the outcome,” said Daniel Balaban, one of the lawyers for the airline employees. “We couldn`t represent better clients — who doesn`t love a flight attendant?”

Balaban said that other cases could go to trial if Twin Hill declines to settle them.

Twin Hill could ask the judge to reduce the jury award and could appeal the verdict. A lawyer for the company, Robert V. Good Jr., declined to comment when reached by phone.

American eventually ended the contract with Twin Hill and contracted with Land’s End for uniforms.

In their lawsuit, the flight attendants claimed that their uniforms contained traces of formaldehyde, toluene and other toxic chemicals linked to health problems. Resins containing formaldehyde have been used in fabric for years to keep clothes wrinkle-free and make them last longer.

A 2010 study by congressional researchers found that formaldehyde levels in clothing is generally low, but some people suffer allergic reactions including rashes, blisters, and itchy or burning skin. Washing clothes before wearing them can help, but doesn`t always work, the researcher said.

The flight attendants` lawyers put on witnesses who testified about a 2018 study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, who reported finding a link between new uniforms and health complaints by Alaska Airlines attendants.

Lawyers for Twin Hill put on expert witnesses who discounted the potential health effects of the uniforms. Silver-Charan said none of the defense experts ever talked to her or asked to test her uniform for chemicals.

The jury proposed $320,000 in lost income and pain and suffering for Silver-Charan and $750,000 in damages for Brenda Sabbatino — the two attendants chosen by their lawyers.

Defense lawyers selected two others who had reported less severe health effects. For them, the jurors proposed $10,000 and $5,000 in damages.

Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Business

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Flight Attendants Who Blamed Uniforms for their Health Issues Win Lawsuit Against Clothing Company