Category Archives: Summary Judgment

Plaintiff’s Reliance on Precluded Expert Report Results in Dismissal of Action U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, November 19, 2015

The plaintiff brought this case alleging that his asbestosis and mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure during his employment with United States Navy. Several defendants were dismissed from the action, leaving electrical component manufacturer, Westinghouse as the sole remaining defendant, against whom plaintiff claimed exposure to asbestos from arc chutes contained in Westinghouse electrical products. Prior to the current motion for summary judgment, Westinghouse served several motions seeking to preclude certain portions of plaintiff’s proof, including the expert report and opinion of the plaintiff’s causation…

Continue Reading....

Four Summary Judgments Granted Because Equipment Manufacturers Not Responsible for Asbestos Contained in Equipment Made by Another Manufacturer U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, November 17, 2015

The plaintiffs sued various defendants for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium after the plaintiff developed mesothelioma; his widow continued the suit after he passed. The case was removed to federal court based on 28 U.S.C. Section 1442, the federal officer statute. The remaining defendants – Georgia Pacific, IMO Industries, Crane Company, John Crane, and CBS Corporation – moved for summary judgment, which were granted by the court. The plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure while in the Navy, and testified that asbestos insulation covered the…

Continue Reading....

Court of Appeals Vacates District Court’s Granting of Summary Judgment to Electrical Component Manufacturers Based on Decedent’s Testimony of Working With Products U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 13, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to defendants ABB, Schneider Electric, and Eaton. The court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case. In it’s ruling, the court noted: “In order to prevail in products liability cases, a plaintiff must establish, at minimum, (1) the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury suffered.”(Citation omitted). Regarding exposure, the court held: “Prior to…

Continue Reading....

California Court Holds Refractory Contractor Established Insufficient Evidence of Exposure and Grants Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, November 2, 2015

The plaintiff commenced this wrongful death claim alleging the decedent was exposed to asbestos while J.T. Thorpe & Sons was performing refractory work around boilers. Thorpe moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence decedent was actually in the vicinity of Thorpe employees working with refractory materials. The court concluded that the plaintiff has some threshold burden of establishing some factual basis for exposure and that Thorpe met it initial burden that there was insufficient evidence of exposure: “Thorpe has satisfied…

Continue Reading....

Chunk of Rulings From MDL Allow Previously Dismissed Asbestos Claims to Proceed Even Though Not Listed As Assets In Bankruptcy United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Six cases were decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all started in the Northern District of Ohio, and were transferred to the MDL 875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In all six cases, the plaintiffs brought claims against various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP, and all alleged asbestos exposure while working on ships. All cases were administratively dismissed; after dismissal, the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy, and did not list their asbestos claims as assets. After bankruptcy…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Affirmed for Two Defendants – One Based on Government Contractor Defense and One Due to No Exposure United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 27, 2015

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment to two defendants – Lockheed and UTC, as successor-in-interest to Pratt & Whitney. Summary judgment was affirmed as to Lockheed based on the government contractor defense. Lockheed introduced two affidavits establishing that the Untied States approved specifications requiring the use of asbestos in government aircraft. This equipment conformed to the government’s specifications because Lockheed complied with all its directives for constructing this aircraft, including the use of specific warnings. Further, the United States knew about asbestos…

Continue Reading....

Years After Bankruptcy Case Closed, Reopening of Asbestos Claims by MDL Not Judicially Estopped Due to Failure to List Claims in Bankruptcy Petition U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, October 23, 2015

In 1997, the decedent’s claims for asbestos exposure against shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP were administratively dismissed, with the option of pursuing at a later date. In 1999, the decedent brought claims against various defendants, including the shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP. In 2001, the decedent received a separate cancer diagnosis that he claimed was asbestos related; he died in 2002. In 2003, his widow, the plaintiff, filed for bankruptcy, which was closed four months later. In 2011, the MDL reinstated the action…

Continue Reading....

Boiler Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Contradictory Testimony on Product ID Supreme Court of New York, New York County, October 14, 2015

In this NYCAL case, the plaintiff, Mark Ricci, claims secondhand exposure to asbestos from his father’s work with boilers, including boilers manufactured by defendant Cleaver-Brooks.  During the testimony of the plaintiff’s father, Aldo Ricci’s, he originally answered that he did not recall observing anyone working on a Cleaver-Brooks boiler. Later, during plaintiff’s counsel’s questioning, Aldo did identify Cleaver-Brooks. Based on the contradictory testimony, Cleaver-Brooks moved for summary judgment, arguing that Aldo’s identification of their product was prompted by the plaintiff’s counsel and should be disregarded.…

Continue Reading....

Talc Manufacturer’s Motion to Quash Granted Based on Lack of Specific Personal Jurisdiction Superior Court of California, County of Los Angles, October 16, 2015

In this California case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent, Oscar Villanueva, was exposed to asbestos contaminated talc from the use of Old Spice Talcum powder.   Defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (WCD) was one of the suppliers of talc to Shulton, Inc. (Shulton), the former manufacturer of the Old Spice product. WCD moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity of jurisdictional discovery. Following the discovery, the court granted WCD’s motion to quash. In its analysis, the…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiff’s Failure to Connect Replacement Parts to Pump Manufacturer Key To Upholding Summary Judgment on Appeal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 14, 2015

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Lannes and Kristi Johnson appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Flowserve, Jerguson Gage & Valve, and Warren Pumps. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment. Decedent Vernon Lannes was allegedly exposed to asbestos gaskets, packing, and insulation while serving in the Navy. The court noted that “…the defendants shifted the burden of demonstrating a material issue of fact by ‘pointing out … that there is an absence of evidence to support the [plaintiffs’] case.’” Regarding insulation on Warren Pumps, the…

Continue Reading....