The plaintiff’s decedent, Harold Thomasson, had mesothelioma that was alleged to be a result of his service in the U.S. Navy between 1952 and 1954, and his work as a maintenance man/pipefitter for various employers between 1954 and 1985. The decedent died prior to testifying and 19 defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from any products manufactured or supplied by them. Prior to oral argument, four defendants obtained voluntary dismissals. The remaining 15 …
Continue ReadingAuthor: Jason A. Botticelli
Under Georgia Law, Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Daubert Challenge to Dr. Abraham and Allows Punitive Damage Claim
In this case, the plaintiff and his wife, Roy and Milva Knight, sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., alleging that Roy’s mesothelioma was caused from exposure to asbestos while he was working as an independent sheet metal contractor at Scapa’s facility. It was alleged that Scapa used asbestos fibers in its manufacturing process and there was asbestos insulation on pipes and boilers. The plaintiffs also sued Union Carbide Corp., claiming that it supplied asbestos to non-party Georgia Pacific, which made joint compound that Roy used on …
Continue ReadingAppeals Court Rules on Several Evidentiary Issues in Talc-Asbestos Exposure Case, Ultimately Upholding $1.6 Million Verdict
In this case, the Plaintiff, Steven Kaenzig, and his wife sued multiple defendants, including talc supplier Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., for his contracting mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to the talc on his father’s work clothes. The defendant was the primary supplier of talc where plaintiff’s father worked. The case was tried and a verdict of $1.6 million was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendant challenged several pretrial and evidentiary rulings and the denial of its motion for …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Refuses to Remand State Law Asbestos Case Where Discovery Was Completed and Dispositive Motions Decided
In this case, the plaintiff commenced an action in Maryland state court and alleged the decedent’s exposure to asbestos while working at a Coast Guard yard, as a floor tile salesman, and in connection with residential work. The case was originally removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction, based on the claimed exposure at the Coast Guard yard. After the case proceeded through discovery, all the defendants associated with the claimed shipyard exposure were either dismissed or settled, leaving Union Carbide as the remaining …
Continue ReadingStatute of Limitation in Wrongful Death Action Held to Have Commenced at Time of Decedent’s Diagnosis
The administratrix of the decedent’s estate appealed the lower court’s time-barred dismissal of the wrongful death action she commenced on behalf of the decedent, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 17, 2011 and died on July 9, 2012. The action was commenced on January 9, 2014, which was more than two years after the mesothelioma diagnosis, but less than two years after the decedent’s death.
The court, in its analysis of the subject Pennsylvania statute of limitations, found that the time to file an …
Continue ReadingFELA Asbestos Verdict Upheld on Appeal, Rejecting Defendant’s Challenge to Lack of Evidence of Negligence and Charge on Preexisting Injury
The plaintiff brought this action claiming that the decedent’s work as a laborer and machinist for Illinois Central and its predecessor caused him to be exposed to asbestos and to develop lung cancer. After the jury awarded $2.6 million, with a 45 percent reduction for smoking, the defendant, Illinois Central, appealed, arguing it was not negligent and that the trial court should not have charged the jury on aggravation of a preexisting condition related to the decedent’s smoking.
On appeal, the court rejected the argument …
Continue ReadingAppellate Court Reverses and Certifies an Asbestos Class Action for Medical Monitoring Costs
In 1983-84, it was alleged that during a retrofit project of the Jackson County courthouse, the contractors did not turn off the ventilation system, which allegedly caused asbestos to be circulated throughout the courthouse. “Dust containing asbestos fibers was blown and tracked throughout the Courthouse resulting in layers of dust accumulated throughout the Courthouse and described by one witness as an asbestos powder coating ‘that you could run your hands through,’ it covered ‘everything in various offices,’ and ‘it would be on the floors and …
Continue ReadingPost-Trial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claims Adhered to Upon Motion for Rehearing and Reargument
In this NYCAL case, a New York City jury found that Con Edison, as the premises owner, was 30 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s asbestos-related injuries under New York’s Labor Law § 200(1). On a post-trial motion, the trial court ruled that “absent legally sufficient evidence demonstrating, as a matter of law, that Con Edison supervised or controlled Brown’s work at Ravenwood, defendant sustained its burden of proving that the jury could not have reached its verdict on the issue of Con Edison’s liability pursuant …
Continue ReadingChallenges to Sufficiency of Asbestos Plaintiffs’ Pleadings Continue in Illinois and Missouri Federal Courts
In two decisions issued Thursday out of the Eastern District of Missouri and the Southern District of Illinois, the courts reached different conclusions as to whether the respective plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded causes of action against the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In Campbell v. ABB Inc., the defendant Raypack moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint or to compel a more definitive statement on the ground that the “Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition fails to plead with sufficient particularity which of Raypack’s product(s) …
Continue ReadingPlaintiffs’ Complaint Dismissed for Failure to Plead Circumstances of Asbestos Exposure That Justify Defendants’ Potential Liability
In this California federal court case, plaintiffs Billy and Diana Jeffrey commenced an action generally claiming Mr. Jeffrey had asbestos exposure at numerous worksites spanning from 1962 to 1976. Several defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ complaint merely listed jobsites and dates and generally alleged that the defendants supplied, installed, or maintained asbestos-containing products where Mr. Jeffrey worked.
The court granted the motions to dismiss, with leave to amend, holding: “Mr. …
Continue Reading