Category Archives: Maryland

Pump Manufacturers Had a Duty to Warn Even Though Decedent Never Exposed to Original Pump Gaskets and Packing Maryland Court of Appeals, December 18, 2015

The plaintiff, a widow, brought claims against pump manufacturers Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps, and IMO Industries (defendants) for asbestos exposure sustained by her deceased husband while serving in the Navy for 20 years, from 1956 until 1976. The decedent died of mesothelioma. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had no duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that they neither made nor placed in the stream of commerce. The circuit court granted this motion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed,…

Continue Reading....

Missouri Court, Applying Maryland Law, Upholds $4 Million Verdict, Rejecting Arguments on Expert Challenges, Offsets, and Defective Damages Verdict Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Four, September 22, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff worked as a steamfitter between 1958 and 1983 at a variety of industrial and commercial sites. Of the original 57 defendants, only valve manufacturer Nibco, Inc. went to trial, which resulted in a $4 million plaintiff’s verdict with the trial court applying Maryland law. On appeal, Nibco raised four issues: it should have been granted a directed verdict; the plaintiff’s experts were allowed to offer opinions based on facts not in evidence; the lower court improperly denied setoff rights; and…

Continue Reading....

Outside Contractor Granted Summary Judgment Under Frequency, Proximity, and Regularity Proximate Cause Analysis U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, August 10, 2015

In this Maryland case, the plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos while aboard various Naval vessels. He claimed to have walked by outside contractors installing bulkhead Marinite panels and insulation while heading to and from the engine rooms. Defendant Hopeman moved for summary judgment based on product identification grounds.  Applying Maryland law, the court denied Hopeman’s motion on product identification grounds, even though that portion of the motion was unopposed, finding that the defendant had failed to meet its burden of proof that the work…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Refuses to Remand State Law Asbestos Case Where Discovery Was Completed and Dispositive Motions Decided District of Maryland, March 24, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff commenced an action in Maryland state court and alleged the decedent’s exposure to asbestos while working at a Coast Guard yard, as a floor tile salesman, and in connection with residential work. The case was originally removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction, based on the claimed exposure at the Coast Guard yard. After the case proceeded through discovery, all the defendants associated with the claimed shipyard exposure were either dismissed or settled, leaving Union Carbide as the remaining…

Continue Reading....

Court Remanded Case, Finding No Colorable Federal Contractor Defense U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, February 24, 2015

In this mesothelioma case, the plaintiff brought suit in Maryland State Court claiming exposure to asbestos products while working at a Baltimore shipyard, which then resulted in some of the defendants removing the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) alleging a federal contractor defense. The plaintiff moved to remand, claiming that the removing defendants did not meet their burden of meeting the three-prong test for asserting a colorable federal contractor defense. The district court agreed that the defendants did not meet their…

Continue Reading....