Manufacturer and Distributer of Raw Asbestos Wins Summary Judgment under Sophisticated User Defense

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, September 28, 2020

Plaintiffs Deforest Gibbs and Sherryl L. Gibb asserted claims against multiple defendants, including Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), alleging Mr. Gibbs suffers from mesothelioma as a result of occupational asbestos exposure. Mr. Gibbs worked as a laborer, plumber, and shade tree mechanic for 50 years in South Carolina. He allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos by working with HVAC equipment, hot water heaters, electrical products, valves, drywall, sheetrock, joint compound, caulk, roofing materials, and flooring products.

From 1963 to 1985, UCC manufactured …

Continue Reading

Children’s Wrongful Death Claim Not Barred by Parents’ Settlement Release Agreement

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 28, 2020

Plaintiffs Dorothy and CJ Mayfield filed an asbestos personal-injury lawsuit in Louisiana state court in April 2015, alleging Mr. Mayfield developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products, including those manufactured by CertainTeed. Mr. and Mrs. Mayfield settled their claims with Certainteed in February 2016, and executed a release that contained the following indemnity clause:

In further consideration of the above-described payment, Releasors [CJ Mayfield and Dorothy Mayfield] agree,

Continue Reading

Various Rulings on Defendants’ Motions in Limine in Naval Shipyard Case

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 21-23, 2020

In Asbestos Case Tracker’s third installment of the analysis of pre-trial motions in the Dempster v. Lamorak Insurance Co. matter, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has issued nine decisions on additional motions in limine filed by the defendants. By way of background, the plaintiffs alleged the decedent, Callen L. Dempster, was exposed to asbestos while employed at the Avondale Shipyards from 1962 to 1994. The case was removed …

Continue Reading

Pump Manufacturers’ Motions for Summary Judgment Denied in Navy Exposure Case

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, September 23, 2020

On July 26, 2018, John Pruitt (the plaintiff) sued multiple defendants asserting claims arising from his alleged exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his service as a machinist mate in the United States Navy and as a parts purchaser at Schroer Implement Co. He was deposed in August 2018. In addition to the plaintiff’s testimony, a fact witness, Edmond Dumas, provided testimony …

Continue Reading

Expert Challenges and Motions in Limine Decided in Federal Shipyard Case

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 16, 2020

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has issued seven decisions on motions in limine filed by both plaintiffs and defendants in the Dempster v. Lamorak Insurance Co. matter, which has been closely followed by Asbestos Case Tracker. By way of background, the plaintiffs alleged the decedent, Callen L. Dempster was exposed to asbestos while employed at the Avondale Shipyards from 1962 to 1994. The case was removed to federal …

Continue Reading

Remand Denied as Defendants’ Notice of Removal Deemed Timely and Proper Under Federal Officer Statute

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, September 18, 2020

In this asbestos matter, plaintiff James Becnel contends that he developed lung cancer as a result of his work aboard a Navy vessel while employed at Avondale. The initial complaint was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on July 22, 2019. In August 2019, the plaintiff testified that he worked aboard a Navy vessel known as the Lykes vessel during his deposition. Notably, he filed a second supplemental …

Continue Reading

Defendants Cannot Introduce Collateral Source Income at Trial

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, September 17, 2020

The instant matter has been extensively covered by the Asbestos Case Tracker blog. In addition to the myriad of other motions in limine filed, the plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to exclude questions or comments concerning collateral sources of income or payments. Multiple defendants opposed the motion.

The defendants “concede that evidence of benefits received from collateral sources is inadmissible for the purpose of reducing a plaintiff’s recovery by means of offset,” but argued …

Continue Reading

Brake and Premises Defendants’ Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony Denied

U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, September 16, 2020

The plaintiff, Victor Coffin, alleges he contracted mesothelioma from his work as an aviation electrician in the U.S. Navy from January 1968 to September 1971, as a machinist for Maine Central Railroad (MCRR) from 1971 to 1987 and as an employee of the State of Maine from 1987 to 1988. Defendants MCRR and Honeywell International Inc. have moved to exclude the expert testimony of the plaintiff’s experts Jerrold L. Abraham, M.D. and David Ozonoff, …

Continue Reading

Motion to Consolidate Granted Joining Two NYCAL Cases Against Same Defendant

The plaintiffs in two asbestos product liability actions, represented by the same attorneys, moved to consolidate for purposes of a joint trial pursuant to CPLR § 602(a). Defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. is the single remaining defendant in both actions. In NYCAL, the plaintiffs must show that joinder is appropriate pursuant to the Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co. factors. Notably, the plaintiffs must not meet every Malcolm factor to show that joinder is appropriate. Instead, a joint trial is appropriate when “individual issues do not …

Continue Reading

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Granted for Talc Manufacturer

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, September 11, 2020

Defendant Cyprus Mines filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing the court does not have jurisdiction over Cyprus even though it provided talc to Johnson & Johnson, which incorporated the talc into consumer products and then sold those consumer products in Arkansas. Cyprus argues that undertook no suit-related activities in or directed toward Arkansas, and there is therefore no basis for specific jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff …

Continue Reading