Category Archives: Maritime/Admiralty Law

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....

Plaintiffs’ Dismissal with Prejudice of Claims Against Defendant Rendered Third-Party Demand for Contribution Void U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, November 18, 2016

Third-party defendant Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited (IDC) filed a motion to dismiss defendant Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Company, Inc.’s (Cooper) third party complaint. The court granted IDC’s motion and remanded the case to state court. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of decedent Earl Lindsay, who died of lung cancer. The plaintiffs alleged the decedent worked as a longshoreman for several Cooper companies in the Port of New Orleans from 1954-1979, and during this time was exposed to asbestos. As against IDC, the…

Continue Reading....

Court Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant Boiler Manufacturer Based on Lack of Causation Under Maritime Law U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, September 16, 2016

Plaintiffs Jimmy R. Mitchell and Connie Mitchell filed suit alleging that Mr. Mitchell developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, in part during the course of his employment as a boiler fireman with the U.S. Navy from 1976-79. Defendant Foster Wheeler filed for summary judgment and argued, among other things, lack of causation. To establish causation under maritime law (which both parties agree applied), plaintiffs must show that (1) Mr. Mitchell was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler; (2) the exposure…

Continue Reading....

Court Grants Summary Judgment After Plaintiff Fails to Establish Elements to Pierce the Corporate Veil U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York , August 23, 2016

The plaintiff, Kelan Unterberg, brought this action against multiple defendants for his alleged development of mesothelioma. His complaint lodged three separate causes of action including negligence under the Jones Act, breach of warranty of sea worthiness and reasonable fitness under U.S. Maritime law, and remedy of maintenance and cure. All of the counts were related to Unterberg’s alleged exposure to asbestos aboard several civilian vessels while working as a chief engineer and merchant seaman from 1973-78. The plaintiff, a citizen of Germany, first brought this…

Continue Reading....

Maritime Law Applied in Granting of Summary Judgment to Manufacturer of Blowers Used on Naval Ship U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, August 29, 2016

The plaintiff sued several defendants alleging that he developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos products of the defendants while he served as a boiler tender in the U.S. Navy from 1976-79. Defendants Atwood and Morill (Atwood) and Carrier Corp. moved for summary judgment. The court’s analysis started with the standard for summary judgment. “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as…

Continue Reading....

Magistrate Judge Recommends Various Rulings on Five Summary Judgment Motions Filed by Defendants U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, August 19, 2016

The United States Magistrate Judge recommended disposition on five summary judgment motions filed by various defendants in this mesothelioma case wherein plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure during plaintiff Mark Hillyer’s employment with the U.S. Navy from 1967-1997.  The only product identification witness was plaintiff Mark Hillyer, who testified that he was exposed to asbestos through his maintenance work on reactor plant systems, steam plant systems, engines, and turbine generators.  In deciding these motions, the court applied maritime law such that plaintiff must show that (1) he…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment to Shipbuilders Upheld on Appeal Since Ships Are Not Products and Rejection of Plaintiffs’ Every Exposure Claim U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 31, 2016

In this case, the decedent, James McIndoe, was alleged to have been exposed to asbestos pipe insulation while serving aboard the USS Coral Sea, built by Huntington Ingalls Inc., from 1961–63 and the USS Wordern, built by Bath Iron Works Corporation from 1966-67. The case was removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and Huntington and Bath moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions “on the grounds that the ships were not products for purposes of strict liability…

Continue Reading....

Regardless of Whether New York or Maritime Law Applied, Government Contractor and Bare Metal Defenses Insufficient to Grant Summary Judgment to Foster Wheeler U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, March 21, 2016

The plaintiff alleged the decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1947-52, and while on board the USS Charles H. Roan. Defendants Foster Wheeler and General Electric removed to federal court pursuant to the federal officer statute. Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment based on: (1) the government contractor defense; (2) bare metal defense; and (3) its products were not a substantial factor in causing injury. Crane Co. also moved for summary judgment; Crane, CBS Corp., and Foster Wheeler also…

Continue Reading....

On Remand, Federal Court Again Grants Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Maritime and State Law Claims U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, February 8, 2016

In this federal court case, the court’s jurisdiction was based solely on the plaintiff’s assertion of maritime jurisdiction as set forth in in his fourth amended complaint. The plaintiff brought claims against 54 defendants that manufactured asbestos-containing products that the decedent, Christopher Curtis, was allegedly exposed to in three different situations: From 1955-58 while he served in the Navy, while employed as an electrician for 40 years, and while performing maintenance on his automobiles. The plaintiff settled against many of the 54 defendants, and other…

Continue Reading....