Talc Defendant Successfully Excludes Expert Opinion Pursuant to Daubert

The plaintiff, Doris Gordon, alleged that she developed fatal mesothelioma in part from her use of asbestos-contaminated Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder that was manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendant, Colgate-Palmolive. Colgate sought exclusion of the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Ronald Gordon. The court considered Colgate’s Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Gordon’s testimony and a separate motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding the plaintiff’s testing because of lack of authenticity and relevance of the talc tested. The Daubert motion was granted, and …

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quells Disagreement Over Bare Metal Defense in Maritime Cases

In the past few years, the bare metal defense has seen inconsistent and nebulous holdings around the nation. The bare metal defense vindicates an asbestos defendant that manufactured a product that was made of only metal without asbestos but later utilized asbestos components within its products. The defense is commonly seen amongst pump and valve manufacturers and also in United States Navy cases, thereby implicating maritime law. Examples of trial courts granting summary judgment for the defense only to be overturned on appeal are readily …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Granted for Brake Manufacturer Based Upon Lack of Product Identification

WASHINGTON – The plaintiff filed suit in Washington state court alleging that decedent, Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, developed mesothelioma from exposure to brakes manufactured by Standard Motor Products (SMP), which he used while performing maintenance on his vehicles from 1966 to 1997. The case was removed to federal court. SMP moved for summary judgment based upon a lack of product identification evidence. The plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Although the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the decedent used SMP products, no witnesses testified as such. …

Continue Reading

“Dusty Conditions” Alone Not Enough to Defeat Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

WASHINGTON – In Marietta Dianne Yaw, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Donald Arthur Yaw v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al, pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, the court recently granted motions for summary judgment for three defendants. The plaintiffs, Donald and Marietta Yaw, filed the lawsuit in May 2018 alleging that Donald Yaw was injured from his exposure to asbestos as a result of his work with and around several defendants’ products. …

Continue Reading

J&J Wins Defense Verdict in Kentucky Talc Case

KENTUCKY – A Louisville state court deliberated for approximately a half hour on August 2, 2019 before finding in favor of Johnson & Johnson in a talc case. The lawsuit alleged that Donna Ann Hayes died from mesothelioma caused by her use of talcum powder products. The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that the talc was contaminated with asbestos, but J&J disputed those allegations.

 …

Continue Reading

Talc Case Remanded To State Court When Fraudulent Joinder Theory Fails

NEW YORK – The plaintiff, Marilyn LaFlair, sued Port Jervis, New York resident Kolmar Laboratories, Inc. (Kolmar) and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in state court in St. Lawrence County, New York. She alleged that asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talcum powder products manufactured and supplied by these defendants caused her mesothelioma. J&J removed the action to federal court and argued that non-diverse defendant Kolmar was fraudulently joined to the action. J&J contended that the “boilerplate allegations” of the plaintiff’s pleadings at most only suggested that Kolmar manufactured, sampled …

Continue Reading

Corporate Representative for Power Company Defendant Can’t Escape Deposition Notice Based On Long Period of Inquiry

FLORIDA – The plaintiff, Larry Cook, sued his employer Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) under negligence and premises liability theories for injuries allegedly sustained while working with or around asbestos in FPL power plants. Cook issued several notices for the deposition of a corporate representative of FPL to discover information regarding their use of asbestos, and requested documents and other materials from the company dating back to 1925.  FPL moved for protective orders arguing that compliance would be burdensome and costly. The court denied …

Continue Reading

Second Notice of Removal by Pump Defendant Found Timely Despite Administrative Close of Original Action

NEW YORK – The plaintiff Francis Keating filed suit against dozens of companies alleging he contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were liable. Specifically, he believed he had been exposed to asbestos while working as a machinist in the United States Navy from 1953-1974 and while working for Eastman Kodak and Motorola as a refrigeration technician during the 1970s and 1980s. Aurora Pump Co. contacted the plaintiff and sought the plaintiff’s consent for the entry …

Continue Reading

Claimants Committee Motion to Dismiss Denied by Bankruptcy Court; Finding that Bestwall’s Bankruptcy Reorganization was not Filed in Bad Faith

NORTH CAROLINA – Asbestos claimants (claimants committee) in this Chapter 11 case filed a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case filed by Georgia Pacific (GP) for its acquisition of Bestwall arguing that the petition was filed in bad faith and established a reorganization that was “objectively futile.”

By way of background, GP filed for corporate restructuring in 2017 as a result of “decades long” asbestos litigation liabilities. As many as 64,000 asbestos claims were pending against Bestwall as of the date of the petition alone. …

Continue Reading

New York Federal Court Orders Trial in Asbestos Coverage Dispute

NEW YORK – Utica Mutual Insurance Company and Clearwater Insurance Company, which entered into reinsurance agreements regarding umbrella policies that Utica issued to Goulds Pumps, will go to trial over whether Utica can recover from Clearwater certain defense costs it paid to Goulds in underlying personal injury actions by asbestos claimants.

Utica will be able to recover the costs from Clearwater only if the umbrella policies obligated Utica to pay defense costs to Goulds. Clearwater argued that the umbrella policies provided no such obligation. Specifically, …

Continue Reading