Category Archives: Summary Judgment

Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Opinions Because They Did Not Read Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony and Grants Summary Judgment Based on Insufficient Product Exposure Court of Appeal of California, September 8, 2015

In this mesothelioma case, plaintiff James Shiffer worked at a power plant for several months in 1969 and 1970, during which time he claimed exposure to a Westinghouse turbine with asbestos-containing components that was present at the plant. Westinghouse moved for summary judgment because “…[t]here is no dispute Shiffer did not repair or maintain any Westinghouse equipment, and did not install or remove any insulation material himself. Nor is there any dispute that no already-installed insulation was removed or disturbed during Shiffer’s time at Ginna.”…

Continue Reading....

Court Provides Mixed Ruling in Applying Kansas Law and Granting Summary Judgment to One Defendant, but not the Other U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, September 3, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff, John New, alleged exposure to asbestos while working at various businesses in Kansas and Missouri. Defendants Hennessy Industries and Caterpillar Incorporated moved to apply Kansas law and for summary judgment. The court granted in part Hennessy’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The court found that Kansas law “possesses the most significant relationship to these parties and causes of actions.” In its assessment, the court reviewed four factors: the place of exposure and diagnosis, where the conduct causing the injury…

Continue Reading....

Connecticut Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Asbestos Action for Failure to Prosecute the Action with Reasonable Diligence Appellate Court of Connecticut, Decided September 2015

The plaintiff’s decedent brought this personal injury action in August 2009, alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from several defendants’ products. The plaintiff’s decedent died a few days after the commencement of this action and before any deposition testimony or product identification evidence was disclosed. The plaintiff was appointed as executrix of the decedent’s estate less than a month after his death. In November 2012, three years after the decedent’s death, the trial court set a trial date. The defendants moved…

Continue Reading....

Court Applies Delaware’s Borrowing Statute in Granting Defendants’ Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, September 1, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that his lung cancer was caused by exposure to several defendants’ asbestos-containing products while he was working in Michigan. The plaintiff and his wife filed their claim in Delaware and all defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action was untimely under the Delaware statute of limitations, which they claimed applied pursuant to Delaware’s “Borrowing Statute,”10 Del. C. 8121. The court agreed and granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The court pointed out that the parties had agreed…

Continue Reading....

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....

Defendant Granted Summary Judgment Despite Allowance of Late Evidence of Product on Site U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, July 30, 2015

In this federal court case, the decedent, Wayne Perkins, alleges exposure to various asbestos products while working as a merchant mariner between 1952 and 1973. Defendant Honeywell International Inc., successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, moved for summary judgment,  arguing there is no evidence of the decedent being exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured by it or its predecessor. Despite discovery being closed, the court allowed affidavits of individuals who worked with the decedent, which were submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to Honeywell’s motion. However,…

Continue Reading....

Illinois Appellate Court Reverses Verdict Based on Defendant Being Precluded from Introducing Alternative Exposure Evidence Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, July 30, 2015

In this Illinois case, the plaintiff claimed at that he was exposed to asbestos at property owned by the defendant. At trial, the defendant sought to introduce into evidence other substantial asbestos exposure at a different unrelated facility. The defendant’s argument was that the other, more substantial exposure was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s asbestosis, not the minimal asbestos exposure at defendant’s facility. After a lengthy discussion of Illinois’ case law on proximate cause and burden, the appellate court decided the trial court…

Continue Reading....

Willful and Wanton Claim Dismissed in Asbestos Case U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, July 27, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff worked as an auto mechanic and performed brake work in the 1960s and 1970s.  Defendant Genuine Auto Parts moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for willful and wanton conduct. The plaintiff opposed the motion, essentially pointing to the general state of knowledge as to the hazards of asbestos, but failed to offer any evidence that Genuine Auto Parts consciously made a decision to sell asbestos-containing products with knowledge of the decision. The dismissal of the claim…

Continue Reading....

Brake Manufacturer Obtains Dismissal of Claims of Willful and Wanton Conduct U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, July 27, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from a variety of automotive parts while working as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family. The defendant, brake manufacturer Genuine Parts, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that it committed false representation and fraud regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs opposed, offering among other things historical documents, an expert…

Continue Reading....

Brake Manufacturer Obtains Dismissal of Claims of Willful and Wanton Conduct U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, July 27, 2015

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from a variety of automotive parts while working as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family. The defendant, brake manufacturer Genuine Parts, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that it committed false representation and fraud regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs opposed, offering among other things historical documents, an expert…

Continue Reading....