Category Archives: Summary Judgment

Summary Judgment Reversed Against Gasket Defendant Despite Contradictory Declaration Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, December 22, 2017

CALIFORNIA — The plaintiffs filed suit against dozens of defendants, including Familian Corporation, alleging that Mr. Turley developed an asbestos related disease for which defendants were liable. Specifically, Mr. Turley alleged that he was exposed to asbestos containing cement pipe, pipe collars, gaskets and elbows made by Familian while working at various Pacific Gas and Electric Company locations. Familian moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs filed an opposition with a declaration from a witness, Paul Scott, who had not been deposed. The declaration implicated Familian…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Testimony about Secondary Brake Exposure Sufficient to Overcome Summary Judgment U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, December 13, 2017

OHIO – Plaintiff Julia Alexander filed suit against multiple defendants after she was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in May of 2016. The plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to asbestos via Bendix brake products which were manufactured by Honeywell International. The plaintiff testified that she visited her fiancé, an automobile mechanic, two to three times per week for four hours a visit from 1987-91. Throughout this period, the plaintiff alleges she observed her fiancé performing brake work on a variety of vehicles one to three…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted for Ford on Strict Liability, Punitives, and Conspiracy Claims U.S. District Court, District of Delaware December 12, 2017

DELAWARE — Asbestosis plaintiff Gerald Hickman alleged take home, bystander, and direct exposure to asbestos from, among others, defendant Ford Motor Company. Ford moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff alleged exposure to Ford products during his work around others in garages and gas stations, from his father’s work in the family service station, and from his own repair work on his wife’s new Ford Mustang. Applying Delaware law, the court denied summary judgment as to the…

Continue Reading....

No Reasonable Inference that Union Carbide Supplied Asbestos to Joint Compound Manufacturers; Summary Judgment Granted Superior Court of Delaware, December 11, 2017

DELAWARE — Plaintiff Larry Sturgill, who died of mesothelioma, worked in home remodeling and construction for three years, using joint compound manufactured by three companies. Defendant Union Carbide moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. U.S. Gypsum and National Gypsum, were allegedly supplied with Calidria asbestos for their joint compound products by Union Carbide. Virginia substantive law governed the case. Union Carbide argued that 1) the plaintiff could not establish that he worked with any joint compound containing Calidria, 2) that a bulk supplier…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Delaware Maritime Action Based Upon Lack of Product Identification Superior Court of Delaware, November 29, 2017

DELAWARE — In an unreported opinion issued on November 29, 2017, the Superior Court of Delaware affirmed the entry of summary judgment on behalf of Warren Pumps. The plaintiff, Phillip Walsh, served aboard the USS Halsey and USS Bigelow from 1975 to 1977 as a machinist in the U.S. Navy. He was the only product identification witness offered. He testified that he removed insulation from pumps, and also removed and installed packing and gaskets on the pumps. With regard to the manufacturer of those replacement…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Favor of Insulation Suppliers Based Upon Lack of Product Identification Circuit Court for Baltimore County, November 20, 2017

MARYLAND — The Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed the entry of summary judgment for two insulation suppliers-installers in a mesothelioma case arising from Bethlehem Steel’s Key Highway Shipyard (KHS), agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence linking the plaintiff to the products or employees of the insulation defendants. The evidence demonstrated that MCIC, Inc. (formerly the McCormick Asbestos Company) and Wallace & Gale Settlement Trust (formerly the Wallace & Gale Company) both supplied and installed insulation at KHS during the plaintiff’s years of…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Causation and Lack of Opposition Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, October 27, 2017

KENTUCKY — Rojelio Surita brought this action against several defendants alleging his decedent, Nancy Surita, developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos containing products for which Defendants were liable. Nancy Surita gave deposition testimony stating that she assisted in brake jobs on the family farm while growing up in Illinois. She also recalled maintenance on vehicles while serving in the National Guard. Later she testified as to working on military trucks. Although she recalled Caterpillar as the manufacturer of the transmissions, she testified that she did…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Status as Independent Contractor Bars Negligence Claim Superior Court of Delaware, October 26, 2017

DELAWARE — Defendant Covestro was the premises owner or successor in interest to one or more prior owners of Mobay Chemical Plant. The plaintiff worked at Mobay for six months in 1979 and was employed by Dravo Corporation, a third party contractor.  The plaintiff testified that he removed insulation from pipes and other equipment; he received instruction and equipment from Dravo supervisors. The plaintiff also worked at Mobay from 1986-88 as a contract engineer for Midwest Tech and testified that he reported to two Mobay…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Incomplete Deposition Testimony Deemed Inadmissible; Summary Judgment Granted for Defendant U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, October 19, 2017

OHIO — The decedent, Donald French, filed suit as a result of his diagnosis of mesothelioma allegedly caused by occupational exposure from asbestos-containing products through his work at U.S. Steel in Dearborn, Michigan. French provided testimony as to his alleged exposures at a discovery deposition that lasted approximately 18 hours over three days. On the third day, French identified the defendant as a source of exposure. The deposition, however, was not completed. The fourth day of deposition was adjourned due to French’s poor health. French…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted Where Worker’s Compensation Act Bars Plaintiff’s Claims U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, September 29, 2017

NORTH CAROLINA — Plaintiffs filed suit against Alcatel Lucent, as successor in interest to Western Electric and Bell Labs (Alcatel), alleging Mr. Moore developed mesothelioma as a result of his work as a cable puller from 1965-95. Alcatel moved for summary judgment, arguing that the North Carolina Worker’s Compensation Act (Act) prohibited the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs opposed summary judgment and took the position that the exception laid down by the court in Woodson applied. The court’s analysis began with the standard for summary judgment.…

Continue Reading....