Let us say we have a trial against the asbestos companies and the plaintiffs lose because the plaintiff is found to have not been exposed to asbestos in a way in which exposure was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injuries. Now, what happens in a case where we proceed against the tobacco companies? Are we collaterally estopped from asserting a synergy argument against the tobacco companies because a jury has formerly held that the plaintiffs injury was not caused by asbestos? And despite that, can the tobacco companies nonetheless proceed and enter a defense and argue to a jury that in fact it's asbestos that caused the injury and not. tobacco? 9 . In Forbes v. American Tobacco Co., 37 F.R.D. 530 (E.D.Wis.1965), the court severed claims again 9, 641-42 (N.D.Ga.1993) (<HOLDING>); Hanes Dye and Finishing Co. v. Caisson Corp.,
holding joinder of two defendants was proper where plaintiffs filed a products liability claim against general motors and a negligent roadway design claim against a local government for injuries caused by an automobile accident holding automobile exclusion in general liability policy did not apply because plaintiffs claim of negligent supervision and training was a separate and distinct theory of recovery from the use of an automobile recognizing that limitation of coverage in automobile liability policy to  accident s  was founded on the elemental proposition that injuries will not be deemed caused by accident where the injuries are intentionally inflicted this generally being considered a risk which it would be against public policy to insure recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug