Category Archives: Maryland

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....