A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
788 F.2d 994 (1986)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
In the 1970s and early 1980s, A.H. Robins Co. (Robins) (plaintiff) was subjected to thousands of lawsuits alleging injury from its Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive devices. In August 1985, Robins filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. By that point, Robins and its insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Aetna), had paid out more than $517 million in judgments and settlements, with additional suits and claims still pending. More than half of the pending actions were against Robins as the sole defendant; these were automatically stayed by the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The remaining suits included one or more codefendants who were not bankrupt, including two Robins family members, two doctors associated with the Dalkon Shield device, and Aetna. The plaintiffs in a number of these suits moved to sever their actions against Robins in order to proceed against the codefendants. In response, Robins filed an action against Piccinin and other plaintiffs in eight such suits (defendants). Robins sought (1) a declaration that its Aetna products liability policy was property of the bankruptcy estate and (2) injunctive relief staying actions against Robins’ codefendants. The district court ruled in favor of Robins on both counts. Piccinin and the other defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.