Category Archives: Delaware

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment for Automotive Defendant for Lack of Causation U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 16, 2017

Plaintiffs Stephen and Marilyn Charlevoix brought this asbestos-related action against various defendants, including Fiat Allis North America, on July 10, 2015, in the Delaware Supreme Court. They alleged that Stephen Charlevoix developed mesothelioma as a result of naval and occupational exposure to asbestos between 1961 and 1978. During this time, Charlevoix worked as boiler tender, maintenance worker, and equipment installer. Charlevoix also ran his own logging business from the late 1960s up until the filing of the lawsuit at issue. The case was removed to…

Continue Reading....

Magistrate Judge Recommends Granting Summary Judgment to Four Defendants Due to Lack of Evidence U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 15, 2017

A report and recommendation was made regarding four summary judgment motions filed by defendants Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill Company, and Nash Engineering. The plaintiffs did not respond to any of the motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting all four motions. The plaintiffs originally filed in Delaware state court, alleging that Icom Henry Evans developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure while a fireman and boiler tender with the U.S. Navy from 1957-1967. Foster Wheeler removed to federal court. The only fact…

Continue Reading....

Expert Affidavit Does Not Create a Question of Fact for Nonmoving Party in Motion for Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 8, 2017

On February 8, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendants Crane Co., Warren Pumps LL, and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Buffalo) separate motions for summary judgment with regards to all causation counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff asserted state law causes of actions against the defendants based on David MacQueen’s (the decedent) employment in the U.S. Navy. The decedent was aboard the U.S.S. Randolph and the U.S.S. Independence from 1956-60. The plaintiff alleged that Crane, Warren, and…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Inconsistent Testimony is an Issue for Trial; Summary Judgment is Denied Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, January 17. 2017

On January 17, 2017, the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle denied RCH Newco II LLC’s (Newco) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Jessie Hastings, alleged that he contracted colon cancer as a result of his exposure to Newco’s asbestos-containing product, Galbestos. Galbestos was a material that protected metal and roofing products. Mr. Hastings was the only product identification witness and testified in two depositions. In his first deposition, Mr. Hastings testified that he began working at DuPont’s Chestnut Run facility in 1951-52. He testified…

Continue Reading....

No Error in Recommendation of Summary Judgment Where Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Causation U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, January 9, 2017

Summary Judgment was recommended by the magistrate for the plaintiffs’ failure to establish causation in this case. The plaintiff appealed and contended that his asbestos related disease was a result of exposure to asbestos from Foster Wheeler boilers while working onboard the USS Gridley. The court noted that the standard of review of a magistrate’s report and recommendation is de novo. In this case, no party objected to the application of maritime law. Accordingly, the plaintiff had the burden to show: 1) The plaintiff…

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....

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Apply Federal Maritime Law U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, December 29, 2016

Plaintiffs Ralph Elliott Shaw and Joan Sanderson Shaw initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of Delaware on February 26, 2015 asserting various causes of action arising out of Mr. Shaw’s alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment. Specifically, the plaintiff’s allegations include Mr. Shaw’s occupational exposure as a sheet metal worker in Groton, Connecticut from approximately 1952 to 1954 and 1957 to 1967. Mr. Shaw alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment, at various submarine factories and shipyards with respect…

Continue Reading....

Bankruptcy Court Grants Asbestos Defendants Limited Access to Bankrupt Trust Exhibits U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, November 8, 2016

Honeywell International, Inc. who was joined by Ford Motor Company moved for an order authorizing “any entity . . . to access, inspect, copy and receive copies of … any and all of the 2019 Exhibits filed with the Court in compliance with the 2019 Order or Bankruptcy Rule 2019.” In other words, Honeywell and Ford were seeking an order allowing it access to the statements and exhibits which asbestos claimants submitted in the captioned cases pursuant to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules

Continue Reading....

Certification of Class for Unmanifested Asbestos Claims in Bankruptcy Court Denied U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, September 28, 2016

Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court; certain debtors’ subsidiaries have potential liability related to former employees’ alleged exposure to asbestos in power plants owned or operated by debtors’ predecessors. The bankruptcy court issued an order setting a bar date for all asbestos claimants, establishing requirements for proofs of claim for manifested and unmanifested asbestos claimants, and notice procedures. Appellants filed a motion seeking to have the court, among other things, certify a class of persons holding unmanifested asbestos claims.…

Continue Reading....