Category Archives: Bare Metal/Component Parts

Bare Metal Defense Rebuts Plaintiffs’ Causation Argument for Majority of Industrial Equipment Manufactures U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, April 12, 2017

Patricia Carroll, as special administrator of Ronald Carroll’s estate, sued numerous manufacturers of industrial equipment in which asbestos replacement parts were used, manufacturers of asbestos, or both in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The claims against the defendants arise from the time Mr. Carroll spent working at Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L) from 1959 to 1974. Mr. Carroll worked in a variety of different jobs WP&L’s plants during that period of time, including plant helper, auxiliary equipment operator, and boiler operator.…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Recommended for Turbine and Valve Defendants in Mesothelioma Case U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, March 30, 2017

The plaintiff’s executrix brought this claim against multiple defendants alleging that her decedent, Mr. Denbow, developed mesothelioma as a result of his work in the U.S. Navy onboard the USS New Jersey from 1954-57 and while working at Koppers Chemical from 1965-70. The plaintiff relied upon the testimony of product identification witness Charles Ricker. Although not sure when he met Mr. Denbow, he testified that he met him while working as a machinist mate in engine room Nos. 2 and 4 during his stint on…

Continue Reading....

Exception to Boiler Manufacturer’s Bare Metal Defense Found in Denial of Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, March 16, 2017

James Stevens served as a boiler technician aboard the USS Allagash from July 7, 1951 until October 11, 1952. The boilers on the Allagash were manufactured by Foster Wheeler and included asbestos containing materials in their construction. Foster Wheeler additionally provided additional asbestos containing materials to be used in the boilers. Mr. Stevens was diagnosed with mesothelioma and passed away in 2015. The plaintiffs brought suit against various defendants, including Foster Wheeler, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging Mr.…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted as to Two Defendants and Denied for Several Others in Bare Metal Defense Case

The plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma while working aboard ships as an engine man, machinery repairman, and machinist mate. The defendants moved for summary judgment again after the court announced it would not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s version of the bare metal defense. The court concluded that “the bare metal defense should immunize only a narrower range of conduct.” Summary Judgment is appropriate when the court determines that there is no genuine dispute as to material…

Continue Reading....

Madison County Jury Renders Defense Verdict for Brake Grinder Manufacturer Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial Circuit, February 28, 2017

Plaintiffs Stan and Janet Urban, of West Bloomfield, Michigan, filed a lawsuit in Madison County, Illinois in March 2013. The plaintiffs alleged Mr. Urban developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from using Ammco brake grinders while employed as a high school auto technology teacher. Defendant Hennessy Industries was the last remaining defendant at trial. Ammco is Hennessy’s predecessor. The jury disagreed with the plaintiffs’ request for $10 million, and rendered a verdict in favor of Hennessy. The plaintiffs argued that Hennessy had the power to…

Continue Reading....

Valve Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Denied in Failure to Warn Case Despite Bare Metal Defense U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, February 13, 2017

The plaintiffs brought this action against Crane Co. alleging James Chesher developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos containing packing and gaskets found inside Crane Co. valves while he served in the United States Navy from 1965-1989. The court began its discussion by stating the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is…

Continue Reading....

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Lack of Exposure Evidence and Opposition U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, December 29, 2016

The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Evans developed an asbestos related disease as a result of his exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans alleged that he worked as a fireman and boiler tender on-board the USS Kearsarge from 1957-61 and USS Bole in 1961. Mr. Evans believed that he had been exposed to asbestos from gaskets and refractory products while in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans also alleged that he had been exposed to brake dust…

Continue Reading....

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Establish Exposure Evidence U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, December 29, 2016

The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working with the U.S. Navy from 1961-64 and from 1961-78 with various employers. Defendant Crane Co. removed the case to the U.S. District Court on August 31, 2015. Defendants CBS Corporation, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, FMC Corporation, and Ingersoll Rand moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed no opposition to those motions. The court began its analysis with the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Outlines Alternative Standard to Bare Metal Defense U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 4, 2016

William Bell alleged routine exposure to asbestos while serving as an engine man, machinery repairman, and a machinist mate in the United States Navy in the 1960s. Bell further alleged he was exposed to asbestos both while serving at sea on four ships as well as while training at a land-based Navy facility in Idaho. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015, Bell sued various companies that manufactured a wide range of products including pumps, valves, condensers, compressors, and turbines located on the Navy vessels…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Rejects Argument That Manufacturer Cannot Be Liable for Asbestos-Containing Component Parts U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, September 28, 2016

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District, Philadelphia County, against various defendants claiming that the decedent, who had been employed since the 1950s as a millwright in multiple power plants and steel mill factories, developed work-related malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos and to products containing asbestos. This state action was ultimately removed to federal court and became part of Multidistrict Litigation-875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Here, the plaintiffs specifically alleged that defendant Crane Co. manufactured, produced,…

Continue Reading....