Category Archives: Connecticut

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....

Connecticut Appeals Court Adopts Continuous Trigger and Unavailability Rule of Insurance Allocation Appellate Court of Connecticut, March 2017

R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., which formerly manufactured and sold industrial talc that purportedly contained asbestos, brought this action seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment to determine its rights and obligations, and those of approximately thirty defendant insurance companies, as to the costs of defending and indemnifying the plaintiff in thousands of underlying lawsuits brought against it in the past several decades that alleged personal injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos. In this 147-page decision, the court determined a multitude of issues related to allocation of…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted to Asbestos Paper Products Manufacturer in Take-Home Exposure Case Based on No Duty to Warn Superior Court of Delaware, February 2, 2017

Plaintiff Dorothy Ramsey, through her estate, alleged that the defendant Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center (Herty) negligently failed to warn her of the risks of take-home exposure to Herty’s asbestos paper products used at her husband’s work from 1976-80. She alleged this exposure caused her to develop lung cancer. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The central issue in this case was whether Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and Riedel

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment for Crane Manufacturer Based on Affidavit of Company Vice President Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, July 19, 2016

Plaintif Katherine Filosi, individually and as executor of the estate of Donald Filosi, filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including American Crane & Equipment Corporation (ACECO).  The plaintiff alleged that the decedent Donald Filosi was exposed to asbestos while employed by Boat Corporation (Electric Boat) as a rigger from 1961 to 1998 and, as a result of that exposure, he developed lung cancer and died. Defendant ACECO moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff produced no evidence from which a jury could conclude that…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Recommended Where Plaintiff Fails to Establish Substantial Factor Causation Against Multiple Defendants U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, July 28, 2016

Plaintiff Mark Hillyer sued multiple defendants, alleging that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products while serving in the Navy from 1967 to 1997. His claims were based in negligence, strict liability and loss of consortium. In discovery, the plaintiff was deposed on two occasions but did not produce any other fact or product identification witnesses. The plaintiff testified that, while on the USS George Washington Carver, he conducted preventative maintenance to main engines and turbine generators as well as corrective…

Continue Reading....

Magistrate Judge Recommends Remand to State Court; Removal was Timely, but Defendant Failed to Establish Two of Four Elements of Federal Officer Statute U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, June 10, 2016

The plaintiffs filed this personal injury suit in Delaware after the plaintiff Donnie Wines was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Both plaintiffs died before the suit was completed, and their personal representative was substituted. Defendant Rockwell Automation Inc. removed to federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing: (1) that the notice of removal was untimely, and (2) Rockwell did not meet the requirements of the federal officer removal statute. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff claimed exposure…

Continue Reading....

Court Dismisses Cross-Claims for Lack of Ripeness Since There Was No Judgment Against Ford Defendants Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, May 25, 2016

The plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants for violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, loss of consortium, fraud and premises liability, alleging that the plaintiff Kenneth Reed contracted mesothelioma as a result of direct and secondary exposure to asbestos. After the plaintiffs settled with or dismissed sixty-three of the defendants, the complaint was amended as to the only remaining defendants: Ford Motor Company, Bridge-Haven Ford Truck Sales, Inc. and Stamford Motors (collectively, the Ford Defendants). The Ford Defendants answered the amended complaint and, in…

Continue Reading....

Applying Connecticut Law, Court Finds Existence of Duty in Asbestos Claim Against Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, May 2, 2016

Surviving spouse and personal representative of the decedent filed a three-count complaint against multiple defendants, alleging failure to warn, loss of consortium, and conspiracy due to damages from alleged asbestos exposure.  Defendant Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. filed a motion to strike all three counts for failure to state a claim, which plaintiff opposed.  The court denied the defendant’s motion to strike as to counts one and two, but granted as to count three. Sporting Goods argued a clear disconnect between the duty to warn of…

Continue Reading....

U.S. District Court of Connecticut Denies Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Count Based on Sufficiency of Pleading U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, May 4, 2016

In this case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs’ third count of their complaint alleges reckless conduct by the defendants and seeks punitive damages. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved to dismiss this count, arguing that the plaintiff failed to assert specific allegations of recklessness. The court noted, however, that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants manufactured, distributed, sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which contained asbestos and that the defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed…

Continue Reading....

Court Applies Admiralty Jurisdiction to Grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, September 30, 2015

The plaintiff brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging asbestos exposure while a crew member on two tugboats the Navy leased to his employer, General Dynamics Corporation. The plaintiff also brought a products liability claim under Connecticut law, and his wife brought a loss of consortium claim. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the FTCA, because the lawsuit sounds in admiralty, for which a suit under the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) or the Public Vessels Act…

Continue Reading....