The plaintiff, a widow, brought claims against pump manufacturers Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps, and IMO Industries (defendants) for asbestos exposure sustained by her deceased husband while serving in the Navy for 20 years, from 1956 until 1976. The decedent died of mesothelioma. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had no duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that they neither made nor placed in the stream of commerce. The circuit court granted this motion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, …
Continue ReadingAuthor: Lynn A. Lehnert
California Court Relies on Absence of Evidence in Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses to Affirm Summary Judgment for Defendant Fluor
A husband and wife sued numerous defendants after the husband was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2011. Defendant Fluor moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from Fluor products. The appellate court affirmed.
The plaintiffs alleged the husband was exposed to a variety of asbestos-containing products during his work with Southern California Gas Company from the 1950s-90s. In response to discovery from Fluor, the …
Continue ReadingOhio Appellate Court Affirms Jury’s Verdict Entitling Widow to Worker’s Compensation Benefits After Husband Died of Lung Cancer Allegedly Due to Asbestos Exposure at General Motors
The plaintiff commenced this case after the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation denied her request for widow’s benefits of her late husband, who died from lung cancer allegedly due to asbestos exposure while working at General Motors. General Motors argued that the decedent’s long-time smoking habit of one to two packs of cigarettes per day was the sole cause of his lung cancer. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Fund because: (1) the decedent was exposed …
Continue ReadingNew York Court Addresses Jurisdiction, Product Identification, and Duty to Warn Issues in Denying Valve Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment
The plaintiff developed mesothelioma and asserted asbestos exposure to valves from Fisher Controls International LLC through his work in various states, including New York. Fisher moved for summary judgment and dismissal of various counts if its summary judgment was denied. The court denied the summary judgment, but granted dismissal of certain counts because these were unopposed.
First, Fisher argued that the New York court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction, because it only learned of the plaintiff’s nine-month occupational history in New York when plaintiff …
Continue ReadingDecedent’s Failure to Bring Personal Injury Claims for Known Asbestos Injuries Within Statute of Limitations Period During His Lifetime Barred Wrongful Death Suit
The decedent died of several asbestos related diseases in 2011; he was diagnosed with these diseases in 2003. The plaintiff brought a wrongful death claim against manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products, and the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not bring a wrongful death claim because the decedent failed to bring a personal injury claim within three years of discovering his asbestos-related diseases. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed.
The plaintiff argued that a …
Continue ReadingState Claims Against Railroad Defendants Preempted by Federal Law, Even If Operator of Locomotives Not Subject to Federal Regulation
The decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and alleged take-home asbestos exposure from the work of her father with defendant Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) and also alleged exposure from her father’s personal automotive work. The decedent’s father repaired and maintained air brake systems on PATCO’s locomotives. Railroad defendants (Delaware River Port Authority, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, Thyssenkrupp Budd Company, Pneumo-Abex) moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The district court granted this motion, ruling that federal legislation and precedent …
Continue ReadingFour Summary Judgments Granted Because Equipment Manufacturers Not Responsible for Asbestos Contained in Equipment Made by Another Manufacturer
The plaintiffs sued various defendants for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium after the plaintiff developed mesothelioma; his widow continued the suit after he passed. The case was removed to federal court based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, the federal officer statute. The remaining defendants – Georgia Pacific, IMO Industries, Crane Company, John Crane, and CBS Corporation – moved for summary judgment, which were granted by the court.
The plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure while in the Navy, and testified that asbestos insulation covered the …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff Widow Allowed to Proceed on Claims Even Though Not Timely Substituted as Special Administrator of Husband’s Estate
The decedent died of mesothelioma and the plaintiff, his widow, proceeded on the claims that had been filed prior to his death; the plaintiff did not substitute herself as special administrator of his estate. Defendant Owens-Illinois filed a notice of death pursuant to federal rules, then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(2), requiring timely substitution of a proper party. Defendants 3M and Weyerhaeuser filed motions to join. The plaintiff then dismissed Owens-Illinois, and 3M and Weyerhaeuser filed no …
Continue ReadingWashington Appellate Court Applies New Case Law to Bar Wrongful Death Suits if Statute of Limitations Expires on Personal Injury Claim During Decedent’s Lifetime
In 2006, the plaintiff successfully sued two defendants for injuries related to the plaintiff’s workplace asbestos exposure. This judgment was vacated and remanded to federal district court, where it remained pending. The plaintiff passed away in 2012; two years later, his widow filed a wrongful death claim against new defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations on a personal injury action during the decedent’s lifetime precludes a wrongful death action based on this underlying personal injury claim. The trial …
Continue ReadingReliance of Dr. Eugene Mark on MSDS Sheets Not Enough to Overcome Court’s Exclusion of His Testimony Based on Daubert
The court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Eugene Mark, on the basis of Daubert. After this order, defendant Ford filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss, and defendant Honeywell filed a motion to reconsider the court’s summary judgment order; both were made pursuant to the court’s order excluding Dr. Mark. The plaintiff then moved to continue the trial to find a different causation expert and to file a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion to …
Continue Reading