Author: David E. Rutkowski

Case Decisions / Georgia / Summary Judgment / Take-Home Exposure
Posted by:

No Duty To Warn Third Parties for Take-Home Exposures in Georgia

On November 30, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling, that affirmed in part and reversed in part, a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, which was previously reported on in the ACT.

For a brief background, the plaintiff, Marcella Fletcher originally filed suit against CertainTeed after being diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Fletcher attributed this diagnosis to years of laundering her father’s asbestos dust covered work clothing to which she alleges CertainTeed manufactured the asbestos-laden water pipes that her father had worked with. In …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions
Posted by:

Court Affirms Defense Verdict Finding Defendant Contractor Was Not Negligent

Plaintiff Kenneth Evans was diagnosed with asbestosis after a decades-long career working for the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). For about 35 percent of his employment, Evans worked alongside contractors who helped build and replace gas pipelines; some of those pipelines were covered in a coating that contained asbestos. Evans testified that he worked for SoCalGas from 1954 to 1990. He started out as a pipeline repairman, repairing pipe at various work sites, and working side-by-side with outside contractors on pipeline this work. Specifically, Evans …

Continue Reading
Bankruptcy Trusts / Delaware
Posted by:

Bankruptcy Court Grants Asbestos Defendants Limited Access to Bankrupt Trust Exhibits

Honeywell International, Inc. who was joined by Ford Motor Company moved for an order authorizing “any entity . . . to access, inspect, copy and receive copies of … any and all of the 2019 Exhibits filed with the Court in compliance with the 2019 Order or Bankruptcy Rule 2019.” In other words, Honeywell and Ford were seeking an order allowing it access to the statements and exhibits which asbestos claimants submitted in the captioned cases pursuant to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules …

Continue Reading
Significant Verdicts
Posted by:

NYCAL Jury Awards $12.5 Million in Deceased Smoking Lung Cancer Case

On November 2, 2016, a NYCAL jury awarded a total of $12.5 million in damages to the estate of an auto mechanic, a lifelong smoker who was allegedly exposed to asbestos from almost 10 years of repair work on forklifts in the New York City area. The jury ultimately assigned 55 percent on the defendant and 45 percent on plaintiff. Five of the six jurors in the case approved the award while the dissenting juror said the verdict should have been larger and defendant should …

Continue Reading
Significant Verdicts
Posted by:

Verdict Breakdown for $7 Million Award in Los Angeles County Mesothelioma Case

On October 24, 2016, a Los Angeles County jury awarded a total of $7 million in damages to Peter J. Lamonica and his wife, Exine Lamonica, in a case where multiple defendants were found liable as the cause to Lamonica’s mesothelioma. The verdict sheet demonstrates the jury found the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in contributing to Peter J. Lamonica’s risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury was then instructed to assign the percentage of fault as to each of the 30 entities listed on …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Florida / Verdict Reduction
Posted by:

Court Affirms Judgment for Defendant Carnival Cruise Line That Set Aside a $3.6M Verdict

On October 19, 2016, the Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, affirmed a final judgment in favor of defendant Carnival Corporation, finding no merit.

In the original case at bar, the plaintiff, Giovanna Settimi Caraffa, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Benedetto Emanuele Caraffa, deceased, filed suit in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and For Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleged among other things, that the decedent was injured as a result of asbestos exposure while working and …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New York / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Pump Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Sufficient Exposure

Plaintiff-Decedent William Holzworth filed suit against various defendants in the New York Supreme Court on July 9, 2012 alleging personal injuries pursuant to his diagnosis of mesothelioma allegedly caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos. Specifically, Holzworth alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products during this employment, both as a sonarman serving in the U.S. Navy between 1952 and 1955, and as a construction and project manager between 1963 and 2007. The defendants removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Louisiana / Motions in Limine
Posted by:

Mixed Decision on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. James Millette

The defendants (pump and valve manufactures) filed a motion in limine to exclude certain studies and videos produced by the plaintiff’s expert Dr. James Millette. The defendants challenged two aspects of Dr. Millette’s proposed testimony. First, they argued that some — but not all — of the academic studies that Dr. Millette relied on are not reliable and do not fit the facts of the case, and thus should be precluded from discussing them at trial. Second, the defendants argued that Dr. Millette should not …

Continue Reading
Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Louisiana / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Federal Court Outlines Alternative Standard to Bare Metal Defense

William Bell alleged routine exposure to asbestos while serving as an engine man, machinery repairman, and a machinist mate in the United States Navy in the 1960s. Bell further alleged he was exposed to asbestos both while serving at sea on four ships as well as while training at a land-based Navy facility in Idaho. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015, Bell sued various companies that manufactured a wide range of products including pumps, valves, condensers, compressors, and turbines located on the Navy vessels …

Continue Reading
Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Pennsylvania
Posted by:

Federal Court Rejects Argument That Manufacturer Cannot Be Liable for Asbestos-Containing Component Parts

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District, Philadelphia County, against various defendants claiming that the decedent, who had been employed since the 1950s as a millwright in multiple power plants and steel mill factories, developed work-related malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos and to products containing asbestos.

This state action was ultimately removed to federal court and became part of Multidistrict Litigation-875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Here, the plaintiffs specifically alleged that defendant Crane Co. manufactured, produced, …

Continue Reading