Category Archives: Summary Judgment

Pain and Suffering Damages Found as Pecuniary Under Maritime Law; Summary Judgment Granted in Part and Denied in Part U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, March 6, 2017

The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff, John Bell, lacked standing to pursue a wrongful death or survival action under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Specifically, the defendants relied on the language in DOHSA, which stated that “when death of an individual is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may bring a civil action” and the…

Continue Reading....

Lack of Factual Basis for Plaintiffs’ Assertion of Causation Yields Grant of Summary Judgment Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, March 2, 2017

After the decedent died of mesothelioma, her husband and adult son filed a wrongful death and survivorship complaint against numerous defendants. W.W. Henry Company, predecessor to the Henry Company (who was also named and not a party to this motion) filed a motion for summary judgment based upon lack of exposure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granting of this motion. The plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from the early 1970s-early 1980s during the decedent’s work as an art teacher and sculptor, and from…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment for Automotive Defendant for Lack of Causation U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 16, 2017

Plaintiffs Stephen and Marilyn Charlevoix brought this asbestos-related action against various defendants, including Fiat Allis North America, on July 10, 2015, in the Delaware Supreme Court. They alleged that Stephen Charlevoix developed mesothelioma as a result of naval and occupational exposure to asbestos between 1961 and 1978. During this time, Charlevoix worked as boiler tender, maintenance worker, and equipment installer. Charlevoix also ran his own logging business from the late 1960s up until the filing of the lawsuit at issue. The case was removed to…

Continue Reading....

Magistrate Judge Recommends Granting Summary Judgment to Four Defendants Due to Lack of Evidence U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 15, 2017

A report and recommendation was made regarding four summary judgment motions filed by defendants Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill Company, and Nash Engineering. The plaintiffs did not respond to any of the motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting all four motions. The plaintiffs originally filed in Delaware state court, alleging that Icom Henry Evans developed mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure while a fireman and boiler tender with the U.S. Navy from 1957-1967. Foster Wheeler removed to federal court. The only fact…

Continue Reading....

New York Court Finds No Successor Liability and Grants Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Supreme Court of New York, New York County, February 8, 2017

In this NYCAL asbestos action, plaintiff Ivette Montanez alleged that she developed malignant mesothelioma as the result of washing her brother’s laundry. Montanez’s brother, Eliud Hernandez, Jr., testified to working with Beck/Arnley brakes at a friend’s automobile ship in Puerto Rico when he was 15-17 years old. Defendant Beck Arnley Worldparts, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that it was not the successor to the product alleged to have caused the exposure. The key issue to this motion centered on successor liability…

Continue Reading....

Valve Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Denied in Failure to Warn Case Despite Bare Metal Defense U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, February 13, 2017

The plaintiffs brought this action against Crane Co. alleging James Chesher developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos containing packing and gaskets found inside Crane Co. valves while he served in the United States Navy from 1965-1989. The court began its discussion by stating the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is…

Continue Reading....

Expert Affidavit Does Not Create a Question of Fact for Nonmoving Party in Motion for Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, February 8, 2017

On February 8, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendants Crane Co., Warren Pumps LL, and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Buffalo) separate motions for summary judgment with regards to all causation counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff asserted state law causes of actions against the defendants based on David MacQueen’s (the decedent) employment in the U.S. Navy. The decedent was aboard the U.S.S. Randolph and the U.S.S. Independence from 1956-60. The plaintiff alleged that Crane, Warren, and…

Continue Reading....

Automotive Parts Manufacturers Granted Summary Judgment in Secondary Exposure Case Court of Appeal of California, February 2, 2017

The plaintiff sued various automotive parts manufacturers, alleging secondary asbestos exposure from the work of his father, a mechanic. The plaintiff had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s father worked at Bekins warehouse from June 1974-May 1982, where he did brake, clutch, and engine gasket repair. The plaintiff visited his father at work, helped him at work, and father’s clothes were washed at home. Products identified in discovery included: two Ford trucks; four International semi-truck tractors; Rockwell axles; Carlisle brake linings; Grizzley brake linings (Maremont,…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Granted to Asbestos Paper Products Manufacturer in Take-Home Exposure Case Based on No Duty to Warn Superior Court of Delaware, February 2, 2017

Plaintiff Dorothy Ramsey, through her estate, alleged that the defendant Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center (Herty) negligently failed to warn her of the risks of take-home exposure to Herty’s asbestos paper products used at her husband’s work from 1976-80. She alleged this exposure caused her to develop lung cancer. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The central issue in this case was whether Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and Riedel

Continue Reading....

Fire Door Manufacturer Obtains Summary Judgment in NYCAL; No Duty to Warn Against Latent Dangers from Unforeseeable Use of Product Supreme Court of New York, January 30, 2017

Defendants International Paper Company and Owens-Illinois, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted. All Craft Fabricators, Inc. was hired to do millwork in refurbishing the United Nations headquarters. The general contractor issued a change order to use salvaged wood panels and doors from the Under-Secretary General’s office. These materials were resized and cut for use as interior cabinets at the United Nations building. External testing performed by All Craft showed that the dust from these materials contained asbestos. An affidavit from a professional engineer…

Continue Reading....