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...

Asbestos Case Tracker 2019 Mid-Year Compendium

We are pleased to provide the 2019 Asbestos Case Tracker Compendium containing all of the posts throughout the first half of 2019 to clients and friends of Goldberg Segalla. Goldberg Segalla’s Asbestos Case Tracker blog is the go-to resource for up-to-date asbestos decisions happening in courts throughout the United States. Ranked on the 2018 ABA Journal Web 100 for top legal resources, our blog reports on legislative updates, significant verdicts, and other critical developments in the asbestos area. We provide summaries of and access to…
Continue reading...

Three Defendants Granted Summary Judgment in Maritime Case Pending in Washington U.S.D.C. for the W.D. of Washington, August 19, 2019

WASHINGTON – The plaintiff, Donald Yaw, filed a lawsuit against numerous equipment manufacturers alleging that he suffered injuries as a result of asbestos exposure. The plaintiff experienced his exposure while working as a shipfitter at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1964 to 2001. The plaintiff was deposed before he passed away, but did not remember working on any particular product on any ship. The plaintiff’s expert, Captain Arnold Moore, opined that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while others were removing insulation, packing, and gaskets…
Continue reading...

Plaintiff’s Failure to Show General and Specific Jurisdiction Results in Premises Defendant’s Dismissal U.S. District Court, E.D. of Louisiana, August 15, 2019

LOUISIANA – The plaintiff, Terry Bondurant, alleged exposure to asbestos while working as an electrician at various chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana, including a plant located in Texas that belonged to the defendant, Eastman Kodak. . Kodak, however, was incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business in New York. Kodak moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), on personal jurisdiction grounds, asserting that the court lacked general jurisdiction, as well as specific jurisdiction. Kodak claimed that because neither its state of…
Continue reading...

Delaware Court Uses Ohio Law to Grant Summary Judgment for Asbestos Supplier Superior Court of Delaware, August 15, 2019

DELAWARE – The plaintiff, Marianne Robinson, brought failure to warn and strict liability claims against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). She alleged that UCC sold its Calidria asbestos to Georgia Pacific (GP) for use in their joint compound products for a period of time. Finally, the plaintiff alleged that her late husband, Jack Robinson, purchased and used GP’s Ready Mix products in Ohio between 1971 and 1982, which caused or contributed to his fatal lung cancer. UCC moved for summary judgment. Applying Ohio law,…
Continue reading...

California Case Removed During Jury Selection Sent Back to State Court U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, August 9, 2019

CALIFORNIA – The plaintiff, Arthur Putt, filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 3, 2018, alleging he developed mesothelioma from his use of automobile brakes. Among the 16 defendants sued were Ford, Pneumo Abex and Pep Boys. On August 7, 2019, jury selection began with Ford and Pep Boys participating. Pneumo Abex did not participate in the process, but the superior court had not dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it. On August 8, the plaintiff’s counsel informed the superior court that the claims…
Continue reading...

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quells Disagreement Over Bare Metal Defense in Maritime Cases U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington, August 9, 2019

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...

Supplier Defendant Granted Summary Judgment for Lack of Evidence of Exposure

As the Asbestos Case Tracker recently reported, on August 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently ruled on several defendants motions for summary judgment. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman (decedent) was exposed to asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by the supplier defendant, causing the decedent to develop mesothelioma in July 2017 and pass away in November 2017. In the supplier defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it argued that:
  1. The plaintiff was unable to identify
…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Denial Upheld by Kentucky Court of Appeals Denying Application of Workers’ Compensation Bar

In Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Paul Williams, as Executor of the Estate of Vickie Williams, the court of appeals affirmed a trial court’s denial of the sole defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In this case, Vickie Williams’ father worked for Schneider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company (Square D), for several years. During that time, she allegedly encountered asbestos brought home on her father’s clothing. Ms. Williams also worked for Square D for a few months as a teenager. She…
Continue reading...

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...

Summary Judgment Granted for Brake Manufacturer Based Upon Lack of Product Identification U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, August 5, 2019

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...