In this take-home exposure case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant epithelial mesothelioma (MEM) on or about August 5, 2010 and commenced her case against various defendants on November 5, 2012. After joinder of issue and discovery, several defendants moved for, and were granted, summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2). Under this statute, “the three year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury . . . caused by the latent effects of exposure …
Continue ReadingAuthor: Jason A. Botticelli
Summary Judgment to Shipbuilders Upheld on Appeal Since Ships Are Not Products and Rejection of Plaintiffs’ Every Exposure Claim
In this case, the decedent, James McIndoe, was alleged to have been exposed to asbestos pipe insulation while serving aboard the USS Coral Sea, built by Huntington Ingalls Inc., from 1961–63 and the USS Wordern, built by Bath Iron Works Corporation from 1966-67. The case was removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and Huntington and Bath moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions “on the grounds that the ships were not products for purposes of strict liability …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Numerous NYCAL Cases into Six Trial Groups Granted
The plaintiff moved to consolidate numerous cases into six trial groups pursuant to CPLR 602(a) on the grounds that there are common issues of law and fact. Several defendants opposed the consolidation, arguing, among other things, that they are prejudiced by joint trials, which violate their due process and equal protection rights. They also argued that the plaintiffs consistently recover more in joint trials as juries are confused in joint trials and rely on testimony in one action to bolster their determination in another action …
Continue ReadingLack of Evidence Linking Decedent’s Asbestos Exposure to Defendants Leads to Summary Judgment for Pump and Valve Manufacturers and Contractor
The plaintiff, George Holland, brought this action on behalf of the decedent, Owen Holland, alleging exposure to asbestos from his work at Monsanto Chemical Plant from 1967–2004. From 1974-2002, the decedent worked with external components of pumps and valves manufactured by Goulds and Crane. He also would sweep packing from around the pumps and fibers from around the valves. Both Goulds and Crane moved for—and were denied—summary judgment. Defendant Fluor Daniel preformed construction and maintenance work at Monsanto from 1967-1998. Its motion for summary judgment …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Affirmed as Evidence of Asbestos Impurities in Auto Body Filler Only Equated to a Possibility of Asbestos Exposure
In this case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, John DePree, was exposed to asbestos from various products, including the use of Bondo auto body filler in the 1970s to repair dents in his cars. BASF Catalysts, LLC moved for, and was granted, summary judgment based on its argument that the plaintiffs could not offer more than a mere possibility of exposure to asbestos from a BASF product since any asbestos in the Bondo talc was an impurity and not an intended ingredient. The plaintiffs …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Overturned on Triable Issue as to Medical Monitoring of Plaintiff’s Asbestos-Related Pleural Plaques
In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Robert Hanson, filed a complaint in 2010 against various defendants, including “Doe” defendants, alleging asbestos exposure caused his asbestosis. In 2012, the plaintiff substituted Collins Electrical Company for one of the Doe defendants. In 2013, Collins moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of asbestosis or any asbestos-related injury. While the motion was pending, the plaintiff was allowed to file a first amended complaint, which removed any reference to asbestosis and claimed …
Continue ReadingMotion to Remand Granted Based on Supporting Documents Showing Asbestos Work of Non-Diverse Defendant and Early Stage of Discovery
In this case, the plaintiff alleged exposure through his father’s work close from 1953 through the 1970s. The plaintiff’s father worked at the Exxon Baton Rouge facility. The plaintiff also claimed exposure to asbestos as an adult while working as a carpenter at various residential construction sites and as a contractor at Exxon between 1965 through 1978. Defendant Exxon removed the action to federal court based on diversity with the consent of defendants Georgia-Pacific, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation . The plaintiff subsequently moved to …
Continue ReadingGarlock’s Action Based on Fraud For Failure to Disclose Exposure to Bankrupt Manufacturer’s Products Dismissed as Time-Barred
In a prior action brought by estate representative, Delores Robertson, for alleged asbestos exposure to the decedent, Thomas Robertson, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC was found by a jury to be 25-percent liable. The remainder of the liability was split between the decedent and other settled and non-settled first and third party defendants. Judgment was entered on December 1, 2008. On July 26, 2012, Garlock brought an action pursuant to CR 60.02(d) claiming that the judgment was based on fraud for plaintiff failing to disclose in …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded to State Court to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction as State Court Issues Predominate Case
In this case, the decedent Oscar Villanueva, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from various products while working at Glendale Auto Radio Stereo from 1969 to 1990. Defendant FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court since any judgment would have an impact on its bankruptcy estate. Defendant Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche moved to dismiss arguing improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the claim against FCA and moved to remand for lack of subject matter …
Continue ReadingSection 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act Statute of Repose Found Unconstitutional
In this federal court case, three appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Indiana product liability act statute of repose were consolidated for review. Several defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of repose in each of the cases with various results. The plaintiffs now argue that section 2 of the statute draws a constitutional impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who have claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos and those asbestos plaintiffs that have claims against defendants that …
Continue Reading