Category Archives: New Jersey

New Jersey Court Finds Plaintiff’s Certification Speculative and Grants Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, January 10, 2017

Plaintiff John Burton filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various defendants, including Ingersoll Rand, alleging he developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos during his work at a New Jersey facility that manufactured aluminum cans. During his discovery deposition, Burton testified that the production of aluminum cans required a washing system to which the facility had two “washing machines” that incorporated washing and decorating the cans. Burton recalled these washing machines had 12 pumps and testified generally that Ingersoll…

Continue Reading....

Motion to Dismiss on Lack of Jurisdiction Denied as Limited Discovery is Required U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, January 9, 2016

On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff, Estelle Grimes, widow of plaintiff-decedent Thomas Grimes, brought suit against the defendants and numerous other corporations who also allegedly mined, sold, or distributed asbestos in New Jersey state court. On December 1, 2015, the case was removed from state to federal court. The plaintiff amended the complaint on August 1, 2016. The defendants ACL and Bell filed mirror-image motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on August 4, 2016 before the U.S. District Court for the District of…

Continue Reading....

“Frequency, Regularity and Proximity” Standard in New Jersey Law Acknowledged in Denying Two of Four Summary Judgments U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, December 19, 2016

The plaintiff was a machinist, pipe fitter and electrician from the 1950s-1970s and alleged asbestos exposure during his work at a variety of locations, including during home repair and automotive maintenance. In 2013, he was diagnosed with asbestosis. The plaintiff testified as to working with pumps as a machinist helper on the USS Kitty Hawk while working for the New York Shipyard. He also testified as to asbestos exposure while working as a sheet metal worker for the Pennsylvania Railroad. Defendants Buffalo Pumps, DAP, Sid…

Continue Reading....

Jury Returns Defense Verdict on Failure to Warn and Design Defect Claims Involving Contaminated Talc and Kent Cigarettes Middlesex County, New Jersey, August 15, 2016

In a case involving a variety of alleged asbestos exposures, trial proceeded against three defendants – Lorillard Tobacco, H&V, and Whittaker Clark – for asbestos exposures through allegedly contaminated talc and Kent cigarettes with micronite filters. The jury found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence its failure to warn claims against all three defendants. Design defect claims were alleged against Lorillard and H&V; again, the jury found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that both…

Continue Reading....

No Liability Coverage Allocation for Manufacturers Who Continued Making Products with Asbestos After 1987 N.J. App. Ct. July 20, 2016

  A New Jersey appellate court held that policyholders who continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1987 — when coverage for injuries arising from such products was no longer available — need not shoulder any portion of liability for injuries related to asbestos exposure from their products, so long as any portion of such exposure occurred prior to 1987. The Bendix Corporation, predecessor of Honeywell International, Inc., manufactured and sold brake and clutch pads that contained asbestos. Honeywell has been sued in tens of…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Analyzes New Jersey State Law in Granting Unopposed Summary Judgment Motions of Six Defendants U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, April 8, 2016

In this federal court case, the plaintiff, James McCourt, alleged exposure to asbestos from serving in the Navy (1962-66), working as a pipefitter (1961-62 and 1966-68), home renovations (1952-60), automotive repair work (1959-98), and from the clothing of his father from products manufactured by various defendants. Six defendnats, Guard-Line, Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, PSEG Power, and DAP, Inc., moved for summary judgment. While the plaintiff did not oppose the defendants’ motions, the court still analyzed each motion under New Jersey…

Continue Reading....

Turbine Manufacturer Entitled to Summary Judgment Under Both Maritime Law and New Jersey State Law U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, December 22, 2015

The plaintiff in this case,  Samuel Feaster, alleged exposure to asbestos while employed at a shipyards in New Jersey and  Pennsylvania. Defendant General Electric Company (GE) moved for summary judgment based on maritime law arguing that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by them. The court applied maritime law and granted GE’s motion. The court stated that under maritime law, the plaintiff must show that he was exposed to the defendant’s products and the…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Failure to Accurately Identify Brand Name of Insulation Product During Deposition Results in Summary Judgment for Manufacturer U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, December 3, 2015

The plaintiff alleges he contracted mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products while working as a cleaner at New York Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Camden, New Jersey, and as a rigger at Sun Ship Yard in Chester, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff testified that he was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation and the only insulation manufacturers identified by the plaintiff were Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation and Johns-Manville. During his deposition, the plaintiff was shown the Owens-Illinois “Kaylo” insulation label and testified that he did not…

Continue Reading....

State Claims Against Railroad Defendants Preempted by Federal Law, Even If Operator of Locomotives Not Subject to Federal Regulation Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, November 19, 2015

The decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and alleged take-home asbestos exposure from the work of her father with defendant Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) and also alleged exposure from her father’s personal automotive work. The decedent’s father repaired and maintained air brake systems on PATCO’s locomotives. Railroad defendants (Delaware River Port Authority, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, Thyssenkrupp Budd Company, Pneumo-Abex) moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The district court granted this motion, ruling that federal legislation and precedent…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Applies Laws of New Jersey and the Third Circuit in Allowing Experts to Testify Regarding General, Not Specific, Causation in Case Alleging Renal Cancer U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, October 23, 2015

The plaintiff alleged that he developed renal cancer from asbestos exposure while working at the Philadelphia Navy yard, the New York Shipbuilding yard, and various automotive and electric shops in New Jersey. In July 2013, this case was removed to the federal court in Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875. Defendant Ford moved to exclude the expert testimony of Arthur Frank, M.D., Ph. D., and Scott A. Bralow, D.O., because: (1) the “any exposure” theory underlying their opinions has been deemed inadmissible under Pennsylvania law; (2)…

Continue Reading....