Author: David E. Rutkowski

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

Employers Not Liable for Employee Take-Home Exposure

The plaintiffs allege Ernest V. Quiroz was exposed to asbestos from his father’s work clothes during the years he lived at his father’s home (1952 to 1966). Defendant Reynolds moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe Dr. Quiroz a duty of care. The trial court granted the motion, finding Reynolds “had no duty to Plaintiffs as a matter of law.” The plaintiffs appealed and the case was heard by the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One.

In a negligence action under …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Maritime/Admiralty Law / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant Boiler Manufacturer Based on Lack of Causation Under Maritime Law

Plaintiffs Jimmy R. Mitchell and Connie Mitchell filed suit alleging that Mr. Mitchell developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, in part during the course of his employment as a boiler fireman with the U.S. Navy from 1976-79.

Defendant Foster Wheeler filed for summary judgment and argued, among other things, lack of causation. To establish causation under maritime law (which both parties agree applied), plaintiffs must show that (1) Mr. Mitchell was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler; (2) the exposure …

Continue Reading
California / Other Asbestos News
Posted by:

Defendants Petition California Supreme Court to Review Duty of Care Standard Regarding Take-Home Exposures

In the consolidated matters of Kesner and Havner, the defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court to find there is no duty on employers to protect against take-home exposures experienced by those who are neither employees nor visitors to the employer’s premises; including that of an employee’s spouse or family member.

In the Havner matter, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against defendant BNSF Railway Company, alleging claims for wrongful death based on theories of negligence and premises liability due to the plaintiff’s take-home …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Statute of Limitations / Summary Judgment / Texas
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Claims Barred on Statute of Limitations Based on When She Learned of Her Injuries

Plaintiff Marci Jones filed suit claiming that, during the course of her employment, she suffered personal injuries from being exposed to asbestos, mold and dead animals. The plaintiff was employed by Noble Finance, who rented a commercial building from defendants Andy and Nancy Anderson. The plaintiff’s suit against defendants includes claims for her personal injuries as well as loss of earning capacity and the cost of medical treatment.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting among other arguments, that the plaintiff’s claims failed …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Statute of Repose / Washington
Posted by:

Appeals Court finds No Conflict of Laws and Reverses Dismissal Based on Alaska Statute of Repose

Plaintiff Larry Hoffman filed suit in the Superior Court of Washington, Pierce County against numerous defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos. Specifically, Hoffman is alleging take-home exposure from his father working as a welder for Ketchikan in Alaska in the 1950s and 1960s. Hoffman also alleges exposure from his own work at Ketchikan pulp mills in the 1960s and 1970s. Each mill featured steam turbines manufactured by General Electric (GE). Although it operated solely in Alaska, Ketchikan is a Washington corporation, having …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Defendants Granted Summary Judgment Where Plaintiff Failed to Satisfy Frequency, Proximity, Regularity Standard

Plaintiff Robert Lee Winhauer filed an asbestos action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants, asserting personal injury claims relating to a mesothelioma diagnosis proximately caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. After Winhauer’s death, the complaint was amended to substitute a representative of the estate and add a wrongful death claim. The defendants Honeywell (successor in interest to Bendix) and Ingersoll Rand both filed motions for summary judgment, which …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Punitive Damages / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Provides Mixed Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages Brought by Boiler Manufacturers

The Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania recently ruled on partial motions for summary judgment with respect to punitive damages asserted by the paintiffs, Robert Horst, Jr. and Diane Horst. Defendants filing said motions included Burnham, LLC , Lennox Industries, Inc., and Weil-McLain.

The court stated that, in Pennsylvania, a punitive damages claim must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions / Damages / Punitive Damages / Verdict Reduction
Posted by:

Court Issues Significant Verdict Reduction Based in Part on Jury Error of Finding Intentional Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment

In a case previously reported on in ACT, a California jury found for the plaintiffs, Louis Tyler and Elizabeth Tyler and against defendant American Optical Corporation (AOC), the lone defendant remaining at trial, with an award of $22.8 million. This award consisted of $1.8 million in economic damages (medical expenses, lost income, household services, etc.) and $21 million in non-economic damages. The jury also found that AOC acted with malice, oppression and fraud, and awarded $10 million in punitive damages. The overall verdict totaled …

Continue Reading
Bankruptcy Trusts / Case Decisions / New York / Verdict Reduction
Posted by:

Appellate Court Grants New Trial Due to Lower Court’s Error on Jury Charge as to “Recklessness Standard”

In the matter of the Estate of Lee Holdsworth, in the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County (Lower Court), judgment was entered against the defendant Crane Co. upon a jury verdict finding that Crane Co. was 35 percent liable for the damages arising from injuries sustained by Lee Holdsworth (the plaintiff’s decedent) as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products used as component parts with the valves that defendant produced. The jury also determined the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland
Posted by:

Court of Appeals Denies Plaintiff’s Request of Joinder for Claims Against Both Asbestos Tobacco Defendants

In an asbestos matter, 15 months after filing suit—after most of the deadlines for discovery and naming of witnesses had passed—the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining several tobacco companies on a theory of synergy. The plaintiff’s argued that their lung cancer was caused both by smoking and exposure to asbestos. The Circuit Court dismissed them as being improperly joined on the special asbestos docket but with leave to refile the case on the general civil docket. Sixteen months later, after all claims against the …

Continue Reading