Federal Court Applies Bare Metals Defense in Finding Boiler Manufacturer Not Liable for Asbestos Supplied by Third Parties

After the plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging strict liability and negligence due to asbestos exposure from his work insulating and maintaining boilers. It was transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL, then remanded back to Wisconsin federal court. Defendant Trane U.S., Inc. then moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) it did not assume the liabilities of American Standard, and (2) American Standard did not manufacture, distribute or specify the asbestos materials that caused decedent’s injuries. The court granted the motion …

Continue Reading

Despite Satisfying Foreseeability, Illinois Federal Court Finds No Duty in Secondary Take Home Exposure Case

The plaintiff filed an action for negligence in Illinois state court, alleging she contracted mesothelioma through “take home” exposure from her son, who used asbestos friction paper while working as a mechanic. The defendants removed to federal court based on diversity. Defendant MW Custom Papers LLC, as successor-in-interest to Mead Corporation, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe her a duty. The court granted the motion.

First, MW argued the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts as to foreseeability. The court …

Continue Reading

Vague and Conclusory Evidence in Support of Federal Officer Removal Rights Insufficient, Case Remanded to California State Court

The plaintiff in this case, the decedent’s wife, alleged secondary exposure to her husband through asbestos brought home by the decedent’s father while working as an aircraft mechanic on the base of the Army National Guard. Defendant The Boeing Company removed on federal officer grounds, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand when four defendants remained — Pep Boys, Continental Motors, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and IMO Industries. Goodyear was the only defendant which opposed the motion to remand. The court granted the plaintiff’s …

Continue Reading

California Appellate Court Allows Expert Opinion Testimony on “Every Exposure” Theory

The plaintiff presented expert testimonial evidence at trial that her father’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to his risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff; defendant Honeywell International appealed on two grounds: (1) the “every exposure” theory should have been excluded under California law, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to give a supplemental jury instruction regarding factors relevant to the substantial factor determination. The court found no error.

For …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Granted and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant’s Notice of Removal Both Substantively and Procedurally Improper

The plaintiff filed an action in California state court against various defendants after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises removed to federal court after it was the only remaining defendant on the basis of diversity. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion.

O’Reilly’s notice of removal was both substantively and procedurally improper. A complaint that is not initially removable due to non-diversity may become removable where diversity arises due to a plaintiff’s …

Continue Reading

District Court Relies on Plain Language of Forum-Defendant Rule in Denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand

The plaintiff filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Louisiana state court. Defendant Honeywell filed a notice of removal on the basis of diversity, without knowing that its registered agent in Louisiana was personally served one day before filing the removal. At the time of removal, no other defendant had been served. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that Honeywell could not remove because one of the defendants (Burmaster) was a resident of Louisiana. The plaintiff also argued Honeywell “jumped the gun” by removing before …

Continue Reading

Inherent Difficulties with Discovery In Latent Disease Cases Key to Allowing Plaintiffs to Amend Pleadings After Scheduling Order Deadline

The decedent was a career aircraft mechanic at Belle Chasse Air Force Base, and died of mesothelioma. The decedent’s heirs sued nine defendants in state court for asbestos exposure; defendant Boeing Company removed to federal court. After the deadline to amend pleadings, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to continue the trial date so that they could add the manufacturers of additional aircrafts, and to establish a new scheduling order and trial date. The court declined to continue the trial date, but allowed the plaintiffs …

Continue Reading

Southern District of Illinois Strikes Portions of Pre-Trial Disclosures Containing Vague, Boilerplate Language; Parties Have No Right to Reserve Use of Un-Named Discovery

In four different rulings in the same case, the Southern District of Illinois struck portions of pre-trial disclosures filed by the plaintiff and various defendants. In their pre-trial disclosures, defendants Ingersoll-Rand, Viking Pumps, and Excelsior identified no witnesses and reserved the right to call numerous un-named witnesses at trial. The plaintiff also reserved the right to call numerous un-named witnesses at trial.

The court cited Rule 26: “Under Rule 26(a)(3), pretrial disclosures must (emphasis added) include: ‘(i) the name and, if not previously provided, the …

Continue Reading

In Fact-Intensive Unpublished Opinion, California Appeals Court Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Three of Four Automotive Defendants

In this unpublished opinion, the plaintiffs appealed after the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants Ford, Navistar, Gibbs International, and Kelsey-Hayes. The plaintiffs also filed motions for a new trial as to all four defendants, which the trial court denied. The decedent was a civilian employee at the Naval Construction Battalion Center; while he was not a mechanic, his visited the Construction Equipment Division (CED) where all vehicle repair work was performed. He died of mesothelioma. The appellate court reversed the summary judgments as …

Continue Reading

Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand in Two Cases Originating in Delaware

In two nearly identical cases from the District of Delaware, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court.

In the first case, the plaintiff husband and wife alleged that the husband developed mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos while serving as a boiler tender in the Navy, while working at the shipyard, and through personal automotive work. In the second case, the plaintiff husband and wife alleged that the husband developed mesothelioma through asbestos …

Continue Reading