Category Archives: Statute of Repose

Dismissal of Third-Party Complaint Brought by City of Phoenix Against Contractors and Developers Upheld on Appeal Based Upon Statute of Repose Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, May 19, 2016

In 2013, Carlos Tarazon filed a lawsuit against the City of Phoenix, alleging that he developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure while performing pipe installation and other repairs for the city on projects that took place between 1968 and 1993. The city, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the developers and contractors responsible for the planning, design and construction of the projects, seeking defense and indemnification pursuant to the construction contracts at issue and city ordinances incorporated within other development permits. The…

Continue Reading....

Section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act Statute of Repose Found Unconstitutional Supreme Court of Indiana, March 2, 2016

In this federal court case, three appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Indiana product liability act statute of repose were consolidated for review. Several defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of repose in each of the cases with various results. The plaintiffs now argue that section 2 of the statute draws a constitutional impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who have claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos and those asbestos plaintiffs that have claims against defendants that…

Continue Reading....

Work Performed by Insulation Contractor was Maintenance, Not Improvement, to Real Property; Wisconsin Statue of Repose Did Not Bar Asbestos Claims U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, January 6, 2016

In a follow-up decision from yesterday’s report regarding the summary judgment granted to Foster Wheeler, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation also moved for summary judgment.  The Wisconsin federal court denied this motion. The decedent was a steamfitter; two co-workers testified regarding their work with the decedent at various industrial facilities. They overhauled turbines and tanks, and removed/installed insulation. Sprinkmann was an insulation contractor for at least two of these facilities and moved for summary judgment based on: (1) no evidence Decedent was exposed to Sprinkmann asbestos-containing products;…

Continue Reading....

Statute of Repose Doesn’t Apply in Reversal of Summary Judgment as Evidence Regarding Work Deemed Insufficient to Show an Improvement to Property Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District One, December 22, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff, Sandra Brezonick, alleged that the decedent, John Brezonick, was exposed to asbestos at various sites while working as a steamfitter in the Milwaukee area between 1966 and 2000. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged product liability, negligence and safe place statute claims under Wis. Stat. § 101.11 against numerous defendants.  The defendants included property owners Pabst Brewing Company, Miller Brewing Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) — where asbestos was allegedly used — and insulation contractor Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, which allegedly…

Continue Reading....

Rhode Island Superior Court, Applying Ohio Law, Dismisses Claims Based on Bare Metal Defense and Statute of Repose Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, July 22, 2015

This case involves an interesting discussion regarding the conflict between Ohio and Rhode Island law on the bare metal defense, the sophisticated user doctrine, state of the art, the open and obvious defense, the statue of repose, joint and several liability, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The Rhode Island court ruled that Ohio law applied to this case on those issues and proceeded to consider the defendants’ summary judgment motions under Ohio law. On the bare metal defense, the court granted summary judgment to the…

Continue Reading....

Turbine Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied on Statute of Repose; Gasket Manufacturer’s Motion Granted for Lack of Product ID U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, June 9, 2015

In this federal court case, the decedent, Charles Nuutinen, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter from 1959 through 1996 at various jobsites in Wisconsin, including the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station. The defendant, CBS, the entity responsible for turbine manufacturer Westinghouse Electric Corporation, moved for summary judgment on the Wisconsin statute of repose and gasket manufacturer John Crane moved for lack of product ID. The court denied CBS’ motion, but granted Crane’s motion. CBS argued, and the plaintiff…

Continue Reading....

Question of Fact Found Regarding if Asbestos Insulation Supplied by Company Was for Improvement of Real Property as Required Under Wisconsin Statute of Repose Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District One, April 28, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff, Robin Sorenson, filed strict product liability and negligence claims on behalf of herself and the estate of the decedent who worked as an insulator from 1955 to 1997 and died of lung cancer in 2009. One of the defendants, Building Services Industrial Sales, Inc. (BSIS), a supplier of asbestos insulation to the decedent’s employers, moved for — and was granted — summary judgment on the Wisconsin statute of repose, WIS. STAT. § 893.89(2) (2013-14). The plaintiff appealed, arguing that material…

Continue Reading....

Court Avoids Statute of Repose While Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claims on Lack of Causation Wisconsin Court of Appeals, February 10, 2015

Plaintiff Todd  Alexander commenced a wrongful death action claiming decedent Richard Alexander was exposed to asbestos in connection with his sheet metal, heating, and plumbing business. Defendants Auer and Milwaukee Stove moved for summary judgment under Wisconsin’s Statute of Repose and, in the alternative, along with defendant CertainTeed, on lack of causation. The lower court granted Auer’s and Milwaukee Stove’s motion based on the Statute of Repose and CertainTeed’s motion based on causation. On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals avoided ruling on the Statute…

Continue Reading....