Category Archives: Wisconsin

Summary Judgments Based on Wisconsin Safe Place Statute and Statute of Repose Denied U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, May 15, 2017

The court issued another decision in a case originally reported in Asbestos Case Tracker on May 15, 2017. Plaintiffs Daniel and Beverly Ahnert originally filed a case in 2010 alleging Daniel Ahnert developed asbestosis; that case was transferred to the MDL of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2013 Beverly Ahnert filed a new case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin after Daniel Ahnert died of asbestos-related diseases. In September 2014, the 2011 case was remanded back to Wisconsin. The plaintiff then moved to consolidate…

Continue Reading....

Decedent’s Work Falls Outside Wisconsin’s Statute of Repose; Summary Judgment Denied U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, May 11, 2017

This matter stems from a series of filings. In 2010, plaintiffs Daniel and Beverly Ahnert filed an asbestosis claim on February 25, 2010. That case was transferred to Multidistrict Litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Two and a half years later, Beverly Ahnert, as the executrix of the estate of Danial Ahnert, filed a new complaint in the Easter District of Wisconsin alleging that Daniel Ahnert passed away as a result of an asbestos related disease. This matter deals with defendant Sprinkmann Sons, Inc.…

Continue Reading....

Bare Metal Defense Rebuts Plaintiffs’ Causation Argument for Majority of Industrial Equipment Manufactures U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, April 12, 2017

Patricia Carroll, as special administrator of Ronald Carroll’s estate, sued numerous manufacturers of industrial equipment in which asbestos replacement parts were used, manufacturers of asbestos, or both in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The claims against the defendants arise from the time Mr. Carroll spent working at Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L) from 1959 to 1974. Mr. Carroll worked in a variety of different jobs WP&L’s plants during that period of time, including plant helper, auxiliary equipment operator, and boiler operator.…

Continue Reading....

Judgment in Favor of Insulation Manufacturer due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Insulation Caused Pipe Insulator’s Mesothelioma U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, September 30, 2016

The plaintiff alleged her decedent, Oswald Suoja died from mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos from Kaylo pipe insulation after working as a pipe insulator at Badger Ordance Works in Wisconsin. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pretrial proceedings. The plaintiff specifically alleged that Mr. Suoja had been exposed to a pipe covering product made by Owens-Illinois called “Kaylo” while working as a career asbestos insulation worker. It was also alleged in his bankruptcy trust submissions and…

Continue Reading....

Summary Judgment Reversed Where Court Finds Genuine Dispute as to Fraudulent Transfer of Assets Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Four, June 23, 2016

The plaintiff filed this personal injury lawsuit under theories of negligence and strict liability following the death of her husband from mesothelioma. The plaintiff maintained that her husband was exposed to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured and/or sold by Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc. (FBE Company) from approximately 1963-69. In approximately 1983, Fire Brick Engineers Corporation (FBE Corporation), whose investors included attorneys who had previously represented FBE Company, purchased the assets of FBE Company and eventually changed its name to Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc. In…

Continue Reading....

U.S. District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on Grant of Summary Judgment as to Daubert Challenge, Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity, and Public Nuisance Claim U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, May 5, 2016

The plaintiffs brought a motion for reconsideration for the court’s decision to grant partial summary judgment as to the defendant Weyerhauser’s motion as to its Daubert challenge, The plaintiffs’ claims for Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity and public nuisance claim. The court stated that Rule 56 does not provide for a motion for reconsideration but permits a motion to alter judgment. However, the standard requires the movant to show a “manifest error” in judgment or that newly discovered evidence is available. The court noted that the rule…

Continue Reading....

Federal Court Applies Bare Metals Defense in Finding Boiler Manufacturer Not Liable for Asbestos Supplied by Third Parties U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, March 10, 2016

After the plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging strict liability and negligence due to asbestos exposure from his work insulating and maintaining boilers. It was transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL, then remanded back to Wisconsin federal court. Defendant Trane U.S., Inc. then moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) it did not assume the liabilities of American Standard, and (2) American Standard did not manufacture, distribute or specify the asbestos materials that caused decedent’s injuries. The court granted the motion…

Continue Reading....

Mixed Rulings on Daubert Challenges and Motions for Summary Judgment by Employer on Employees’ Non-Occupational Asbestos Exposure Claims U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, February 19, 2016

In this decision, there were eight separate actions against Weyerhaeuser Company involving private and public nuisance claims brought by, or on the behalf of, former employees of Weyerhaeuser for asbestos-related injuries based on non-occupational exposure. Weyerhaeuser used asbestos in its mineral core plant to manufacture a door core. The plaintiffs non-occupational exposure claims were based on their living, or being, in close proximity to the plant. Weyerhaeuser “moved to strike plaintiffs’ experts and for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs are unable to prove injuries beyond…

Continue Reading....

In Case Where Steamfitter Worked on its Premises, Owner Denied Summary Judgment Based on the Wisconsin Safe Place to Work Statute U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, January 7, 2016

In yet another follow-up decision in the Ahnert case out of Wisconsin federal court, Pabst Brewing Company moved for summary judgment. As previously reported, Foster Wheeler was granted summary judgment, but insulation contractor, Sprinkmann Sons Corp. was denied summary judgment based on the Wisconsin statute of repose. The decedent was a union Steamfitter from 1955 to 1992 and claimed exposure to asbestos while working on Pabst’s premises. In its motion, Pabst argued that there was no evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos from…

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....