Author Archives: Gregory M. McNamee

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Delaware Maritime Action Based Upon Lack of Product Identification Superior Court of Delaware, November 29, 2017

DELAWARE — In an unreported opinion issued on November 29, 2017, the Superior Court of Delaware affirmed the entry of summary judgment on behalf of Warren Pumps. The plaintiff, Phillip Walsh, served aboard the USS Halsey and USS Bigelow from 1975 to 1977 as a machinist in the U.S. Navy. He was the only product identification witness offered. He testified that he removed insulation from pumps, and also removed and installed packing and gaskets on the pumps. With regard to the manufacturer of those replacement…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Favor of Insulation Suppliers Based Upon Lack of Product Identification Circuit Court for Baltimore County, November 20, 2017

MARYLAND — The Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed the entry of summary judgment for two insulation suppliers-installers in a mesothelioma case arising from Bethlehem Steel’s Key Highway Shipyard (KHS), agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence linking the plaintiff to the products or employees of the insulation defendants. The evidence demonstrated that MCIC, Inc. (formerly the McCormick Asbestos Company) and Wallace & Gale Settlement Trust (formerly the Wallace & Gale Company) both supplied and installed insulation at KHS during the plaintiff’s years of…

Continue Reading....

Los Angeles Jury Deliberating in $24M Talcum Product Trial Los Angeles County Superior Court, November 13, 2017

CALIFORNIA — Closing arguments were conducted on Monday, November 13, 2017 in a trial against Johnson & Johnson and its supplier, Imerys Talc America Inc., alleging that asbestos in talcum powder caused the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that Johnson & Johnson and Imerys pushed to delay regulation of talc for years, and that the companies advocated for methods of testing their products for asbestos that could not detect the levels actually present. The plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma, and her life is predicted to…

Continue Reading....

After Close of Discovery Motion for Release of Pathology Materials Granted U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, November 3, 2017

NORTH CAROLINA — Defendant John Crane filed a motion for an order governing the release of pathology materials following the close of discovery. Although pathology materials had been requested from the plaintiff’s counsel nearly a year and a half prior to the discovery end date, they were not produced until eight days after that deadline had passed. John Crane then learned that there were additional pathology materials in the possession of Duke University Hospital System (DHUS). John Crane requested the additional slides in April 2017,…

Continue Reading....

Res Judicata Bars Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma Claim Against Prior Settled Defendant U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 13, 2017

LOUISIANA — The decedent filed an asbestosis lawsuit in 1991 against Owens-Illinois and other defendants. Owens-Illinois settled the claim for $4,000 as part of a group settlement. The Release Agreement stated that the decedent agreed to release the defendant from any cause of action arising out of the decedent’s asbestos-related injury, including mesothelioma, cancer, wrongful death and survival claims. Seventeen years after executing the Release Agreement, the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and eventually passed. His wife and children brought a second action against Owens-Illinois…

Continue Reading....

Lack of Service on Forum Defendants Fails to Defeat Removal Due to Diversity Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 30, 2017

LOUISIANA — The plaintiffs originally filed their petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, after William Leech died of mesothelioma. The plaintiffs were residents of Arizona and named numerous defendants, including three who were Louisiana residents. Nine days after the petition was filed, and before any other defendants were served, defendant Honeywell International removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, which was uncontested. The decedent was a construction engineer who alleged asbestos exposure…

Continue Reading....