Author Archives: James F. Coleman

Mesothelioma Verdict Reduced by $4.3 Million on Appeal Supreme Court, State of New York, November 8, 2017

NEW YORK — Plaintiff Mary Nash filed suit on behalf of the plaintiff’s decedent, Lewis Nash, alleging bystander exposure to asbestos-containing dust from defendant Navistar’s brakes and gaskets while working as a janitor and bus driver in the Fayettteville-Manluis Central School District. The decedent’s exposure occurred in the bus garage at the school, where decedent routinely spent time during his bus runs. The jury awarded the plaintiff the following: three million dollars in conscious pain and suffering; three million dollars in emotional pain and suffering…

Continue Reading....

Lack of Product Specific Expert Testimony About Respirable Asbestos Fibers Reverses Mesothelioma Verdict Supreme Court of Connecticut, November 2, 2017

CONNECTICUT — Plaintiff Marianne Bradley, as executrix of her husband Wayne Bagley’s estate, sought to recover damages pursuant to Connecticut’s Product Liability Act for the wrongful death of the decedent under theories of negligence and strict liability. Plaintiff alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing dust from FM-37, a product manufactured by the defendant, while working at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation and this exposure caused decedent’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant’s actions in selling its product constituted violations of the Act in…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Status as Independent Contractor Bars Negligence Claim Superior Court of Delaware, October 26, 2017

DELAWARE — Defendant Covestro was the premises owner or successor in interest to one or more prior owners of Mobay Chemical Plant. The plaintiff worked at Mobay for six months in 1979 and was employed by Dravo Corporation, a third party contractor.  The plaintiff testified that he removed insulation from pipes and other equipment; he received instruction and equipment from Dravo supervisors. The plaintiff also worked at Mobay from 1986-88 as a contract engineer for Midwest Tech and testified that he reported to two Mobay…

Continue Reading....

Autopsy Ordered Over Plaintiffs’ Objections in Mesothelioma Case U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, October 23, 2017

WASHINGTON — Plaintiffs Leslie Jack and her late-husband Patrick Jack brought suit against numerous defendants, including Genuine Parts Company (GPC), alleging that exposure to their products caused Mr. Jack’s mesothelioma. Mr. Jack passed away on October 15, 2017 and defense counsel was notified on October 17, 2017. Counsel for GPC renewed a prior request for an autopsy on the same day. The plaintiffs’ counsel denied the request and informed defense counsel that Mr. Jack’s body would be cremated on October 19, 2017. Counsel for GPC,…

Continue Reading....

Talc Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Reversed; Question of Fact as to Asbestos content of Product Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, October 19, 2017

CALIFORNIA — Plaintiff Mary Lyons appealed summary judgment entered against her on her product liability claim against defendant Colgate-Palmolive, which was based on the allegation that she developed mesothelioma from the use of Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet cosmetic talcum powder. The plaintiff testified at her deposition that she regularly used Cashmere Bouquet after bathing from the early 1950s through the early 197’s. Colgate manufactured Cashmere Bouquet from 1871 until 1985, and continued marketing the product until 1995, which coincided with the United States EPA’s report that…

Continue Reading....

Remand Denied and Plaintiffs’ Mesothelioma Suit Dismissed Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, October 10, 2017

MINNESOTA — In March 2016, the plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants, including Conwed Corporation, in Missouri Circuit Court in St. Louis alleging that the husband plaintiff’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to the defendants’ asbestos-containing products, including Conwed’s ceiling tile. On January 19, 2017, the Missouri Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint against Conwed without prejudice, finding, in part, that Conwed was “a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York.” The plaintiffs refiled suit on March 16, 2017 in Ramsey…

Continue Reading....

New York Appellate Court Affirms Nine Million Dollar Verdict in Duty to Warn Grinder Case New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, October 5, 2017

NEW YORK — The plaintiff filed suit against various defendants, including Hennessy Industries’ subsidiary, Ammco, alleging that the plaintiff’s use of Ammco’s grinder on asbestos-containing brake linings exposed him to asbestos. The plaintiff’s expert testimony was sufficient to establish exposure to asbestos via use of the grinder in sufficient quantities to cause the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. Further, “because the asbestos-laden dust was created by plaintiff’s use of defendant’s grinder and defendant knew its grinder would be used on asbestos-containing products, defendant had a duty to warn…

Continue Reading....