Category Archives: Case Decisions

Remand Granted Where Defendant Failed to Show Government Exercised Control Over Warnings and Safety U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, August 4, 2017

Plaintiff Robert Templet, Sr. alleged asbestos exposure during his work for defendant Avondale Industries, Inc. The plaintiff was employed by Avondale from 1968-2002, and later developed malignant pleural mesothelioma. Defendants Avondale and Lamorak Insurance Company removed to federal court due to the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted the motion and remanded this case back to the State of Louisiana. Avondale based its removal on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein he testified that they worked on Navy Destroyer Escorts…

Continue Reading....

Compressor Manufacturer’s Appeal Denied Based on Finding of Substantial Contribution to Decedent’s Disease Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, August 2, 2017

Myra Williams died on August 8, 2013 of complications from malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff Jimmy Smith, along with his four children, filed suit against several defendants alleging that their products cause Myra’s mesothelioma. Smith alleged that he was exposed to asbestos fibers while working at the Placid Oil Facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Smith unknowingly brought fibers and dust home on his clothing after each day of work. Myra would handle and wash Jimmy’s clothing, and sustained what is commonly referred to as bystander asbestos exposure. Ingersoll–Rand…

Continue Reading....

Brake and Talc Supplier Successfully Move to Dismiss on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 31, 2017

Following up on prior ACT posts as to the Hodjera suit out of the Western District of Washington, the court granted motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Honeywell International  and Imerys Talc America Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court reiterated that due process requires a district court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to adjudicate a claim against it. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014).  Further, the plaintiffs…

Continue Reading....

Various Product Manufacturers Granted Summary Judgment Under Maritime and Oregon Law U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, July 21, 2017

Harold and Judy Haynes filed this asbestos related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on June 3, 2016, asserting claims arising from Mr. Haynes’ alleged harmful exposure to asbestos. Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to U.S. District Court in Delaware on July 15, 2016. Defendants Aurora, Warren Pumps, Pfizer, FMC, Honeywell, BorgWarner, and Air & Liquid filed motions for summary judgment on March 24, 2017.The plaintiffs did not respond to these motions. Counsel for the defendants sent letters to…

Continue Reading....

Channeling Injunction Prohibits General Motor’s Wrongful Death Suit for Contribution against the Manville Trust U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, July 24, 2017

General Motors (GM) filed suit against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (Manville) seeking a declaratory order that its state suit against Manville was not barred by the longstanding “Channeling Injunction” of the Manville Corporation’s chapter 11 reorganization (the Plan) and subsequent order confirming the same. Separate from the declaratory complaint, GM filed suit in Ohio state court against the estate of Bobby Bolen and multiple asbestos defendants including Manville. GM alleged the defendants were jointly and severally liable to GM as it had subrogated…

Continue Reading....

Each and Every Exposure Theory Insufficient to Prove Specific Causation in South Carolina Federal Court U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, July 21, 2017

This decision addresses a similar issue from two different cases and therefore was decided within the same order. Both sets of plaintiffs offered the opinions of Carlos Bedrossian, MD to provide evidence of specific causation. For a brief factual background, plaintiff John E. Haskins served in the U.S. Navy as a fireman aboard the USS Coney. Haskins was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November of 2014 allegedly caused by his cumulative exposure to asbestos from working with and around asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by the…

Continue Reading....

Generic Expert Report Insufficient to Satisfy Summary Judgment Causation Standard Superior Court of Delaware, July 19, 2017

Plaintiff James Blair as the administer of the estate of Walter Godfrey, Jr. filed suit against defendant Cleaver-Brooks in the Superior Court of Delaware claiming that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the defendant’s boilers and a result, was diagnosed and ultimately passed away from lung cancer. As the sole product identification witness, Walter Godfrey, Jr. testified to working with Cleaver-Brooks boilers at various locations between 1977 and 2013 while employed with Connecticut Boiler Repair. The defendant moved for summary judgment and argued, among…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff Failure to Establish Retailer’s Knowledge of Danger of Asbestos Leads to Summary Judgment Superior Court of Delaware, July 12, 2017

Plaintiffs brought this suit against multiple defendants for Mr. Glaser’s alleged asbestos related injuries. Scott Glaser alleged that he was exposed to asbestos floor tile sold by Sears and Roebuck (“Sears”) while working for various employers. His work required him to clean up “scraps or pieces of floor tile off the floor.” Defendant took the position that it was a retailer and never “mined, milled, processed, or distributed wholesale asbestos containing products.” The Court noted that under Michigan law for a products liability action, a…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Denied Upon Showing that Defendant’s Boilers Contained Asbestos Gaskets and Rope Superior Court of Delaware, July 12, 2017

Plaintiff Clarence Dionne filed suit against several defendants including Cleaver Brooks alleging that he was exposed to asbestos while working at the Bay Area Medical Facility. Plaintiff alleged that he “scraped off the rope gaskets and supervised this task” on the doors of Defendant’s boilers. Not only did he personally perform this work but he also supervised others in the process. After a promotion in 1975, he took on the task of ordering replacement parts through his secretary. The replacement gaskets and insulation were supplied…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted upon Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Replacement Parts Supplied by Valve Defendant Superior Court of Delaware, July 12, 2017

Plaintiff brought this action against several defendants including Fairbanks Company alleging exposure to asbestos while working with Defendant’s valves. Specifically, Plaintiff recalled working with globe, gate and ball valves for various employers and locations. Plaintiff also testified that he replaced packing in the valves and personally removed external insulation to repair the valves. Plaintiff assumed that the packing he encountered contained asbestos based on the high heat application of the equipment. Fairbanks argued that no evidence pointed to it having made asbestos packing Plaintiff encountered.…

Continue Reading....