Month: May 2016

Case Decisions / Connecticut
Posted by:

Applying Connecticut Law, Court Finds Existence of Duty in Asbestos Claim Against Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.

Surviving spouse and personal representative of the decedent filed a three-count complaint against multiple defendants, alleging failure to warn, loss of consortium, and conspiracy due to damages from alleged asbestos exposure.  Defendant Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. filed a motion to strike all three counts for failure to state a claim, which plaintiff opposed.  The court denied the defendant’s motion to strike as to counts one and two, but granted as to count three.

Sporting Goods argued a clear disconnect between the duty to warn of …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Maryland / Motions in Limine / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony Precluded and Summary Judgment Granted Where Expert Disclosure Was Untimely, the Expert Opinion Lacked Sufficient Factual Basis, and Plaintiff’s Claims Were Legally Insufficient on Causation

In this case, the plaintiff sued numerous manufacturers and distributors of products allegedly containing asbestos, including Defendant General Electric Company (GE), following his diagnosis of mesothelioma.

The plaintiff designated Dr. Robert Vance, an industrial hygienist, to testify regarding the sources of the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure. As to GE, Dr. Vance noted in his report that the plaintiff claimed to have worked with GE generators and asbestos-braided wiring at various job sites. Dr. Vance did not offer an opinion in his report regarding the plaintiff’s alleged …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Florida
Posted by:

Case Remanded to State Court as Defendants Could Not Use the Federal Officer Removal Statute Where the Plaintiff Expressly Disclaimed Any Naval Asbestos Exposure

Plaintiff Richard Batchelor, a former employee of Florida Power & Light Company who was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma after he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, or controlled, by the defendants, sued in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County Florida alleging three causes of action; (i) negligence; (ii) strict liability; and (iii) loss of consortium. Following Batchelor’s deposition, during which he testified that he served in the U.S. Navy and, …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Summary Judgment in Favor of the U.S. Government Reversed as Finder of Fact Could Reasonably Conclude Naval Facility Asbestos Exposure was Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma

Plaintiff Roger Botts, a former deliveryman who developed mesothelioma after being around work which exposed him to asbestos, including the removal, installation, and fabrication of asbestos on board ships and around the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard between 1970 and 1976, sued the United States Government in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The government subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiffs had not proven causation. In granting summary judgment, the District Court found that the plaintiffs failed …

Continue Reading
Significant Verdicts
Posted by:

Oregon Jury Finds Against Gasket Manufacturer, Awarding Plaintiff $5 Million

The plaintiff in this case, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma, maintained dry kilns and boilers with asbestos gaskets sold by Mar-Dustrial, which denied selling products to the mill where the plaintiff worked from 1969-2000. The jury disagreed with Mar-Dustrial, and awarded the plaintiff $3.25 million for pain and suffering and $1.75 million for loss of consortium. Mar-Dustrial was the only defendant left at trial, and was assigned 22 percent of liability. The plaintiff called Dr. Carl A. Brodkin as an expert; no experts testified on …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Florida
Posted by:

District Court’s Denial of Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Reversed Upon Reconsideration on the Basis of Lack of Specific Jurisdiction

The plaintiff, who developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos products while working in Massachusetts between the 1940s and 1970s, sued the defendant Union Carbide and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where he later moved, seeking compensatory damages pursuant to causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and failure to use reasonable care. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion. The defendant then filed …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New York / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Trial Court Denies Mechanical Contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment Opposed by Co-Defendants

The plaintiff sued the defendants for his mesothelioma allegedly contracted from his work at the Northpoint Power Station in Northport, Long Island. Mechanical contractor, O’Connor, moved for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims and cross claims. The motion was opposed by co-defendants National Grid and National Grid USA Service Company.

O’Connor maintained that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiff did not identify O’Connor in his Interrogatories and deposition testimony. However, the co-defendants opposed, stating that their affidavits submitted create a sufficient issue of …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

California Appeals Court Applies “Inevitable Use” and Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment as to Brake Arcing Defendant

The appellant brought an appeal on behalf of her late husband, Frank Rondon, arguing that the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment as to her claims for strict liability and negligence. Frank Rondon worked as a mechanic using defendant Hennessy’s (Ammco Tools) brake arcing machines designed to grind asbestos brake shoes.

Hennessy moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not manufacturer, distribute, or design asbestos containing products. Hennessy relied upon expert declarations that non-asbestos brake show linings were available in the …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Summary Judgment / Wisconsin
Posted by:

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

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
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Remand/Removal / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Fourth Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment on Substantial Factor Causation and Affirms Denial of Remand Based on Federal Officer Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in two consolidated appeals upholding the granting of summary judgment to defendants CBS Corporation, General Electric Corporation (GE), MCIC (local insulation contractor), Paramount Packing & Rubber Company, Phelps Packing & Rubber Company, SB Decking, Inc., Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (local insulation contractor), and Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation. The two consolidated cases involved alleged exposures to dust asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied, or installed by the defendants at Baltimore, Maryland area shipyards.

On appeal, …

Continue Reading