In this case it is alleged that the decedent, Glenn Watkins, was exposed to chrysotile asbestos dust from the sanding of Bendix brakes while working as a manager at various Auto Shack and AutoZone retail stores between 1985 and 2006 and that this exposure was a substantial cause of his pleural mesothelioma and death. Prior to trial, all defendants other than Honeywell International Inc. settled or were dismissed. The issue at trial was whether Watkins’ handling of Bendix brakes was a cause-in-fact of his mesothelioma, …
Continue ReadingMonth: May 2016
U.S. District Court of Connecticut Denies Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Count Based on Sufficiency of Pleading
In this case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs’ third count of their complaint alleges reckless conduct by the defendants and seeks punitive damages. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved to dismiss this count, arguing that the plaintiff failed to assert specific allegations of recklessness. The court noted, however, that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants manufactured, distributed, sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which contained asbestos and that the defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed …
Continue ReadingIssue of Foreseeable Duty to be Determined by a Jury in Take-Home Exposure Case Against Plant Where Decedent’s Husband Worked
The plaintiffs’ decedent, Elizabeth Sutherland, alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from her first husband’s work clothes. The plaintiff’s first husband, James “Huey” Chustz, worked as an electrician helper for Hershel Leonard Jr. Electric Company from 1964-72. At minimum, he spent 250 days at the sugar mill Alma Plantation, LLC, where he would become covered in dust from coming into contact with pipes. After dismissal of various parties and claims, the only claim remaining against Alma was if it owed a foreseeable duty to the decedent. …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment in Favor of Supplier of Insulation Affirmed on Strict Liability, But Reversed on Failure to Warn
In this case it is alleged that the decedent, Ian Blandford, was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter from 1955 to 1998. The Edward R. Hart Company (Hart) moved for and was granted summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal the court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on strict product liability, but reversed the granting of summary judgment on the failure to warn claim. Regarding strict product liability, the court pointed out that Hart was a supplier of asbestos insulation, …
Continue ReadingAsbestos Case Tracker Compendium 2015
Goldberg Segalla’s Asbestos Case Tracker blog has been hailed as the go-to resource for real-time access to all reported asbestos decisions from federal and state courts throughout the United States. Our blog also reports on legislative updates, significant verdicts, and other critical developments in the asbestos area.
In 2015, we saw developing trends regarding cutting edge topics in this practice area, which led us to compile these decisions by category to better understand these developments. We are pleased to provide this 2015 category-organized compendium of …
Continue ReadingCiting New York Case Law, Court Denies Crane Co.’s Motion in Limine to Preclude ‘Each and Every Exposure’ Opinion
This opinion addressed potential causation testimony offered by the plaintiffs in two cases. In one case, the plaintiff’s decedent died of mesothelioma prior to being deposed. The decedent’s nephew and co-worker testified during deposition that his uncle was exposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker at shipyards, and while installing furnaces, from the 1960s-70s. His testimony included exposure to insulation, packing, gaskets, and pipe covering used in connection with Crane valves. In the second case, the decedent, a career Navy man, died …
Continue ReadingNew York Court of Appeals Opts for “All Sums” Allocation in Asbestos Coverage Case
In a landmark ruling, the New York Court of Appeals held that “all sums” allocation and vertical exhaustion applied in a case involving coverage for injuries related to asbestos exposure. The court based its holding on the language of the insurance policies, which included non-cumulation clauses or non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions.
The plaintiffs, Viking Pumps, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC acquired pump manufacturing businesses from Houdaille Industries in the 1980s. These acquisitions later subjected Viking and Warren to significant potential liability in connection with …
Continue ReadingHighest New York Court Refuses to Pierce Corporate Veil, Citing Lack of Evidence Establishing Ford USA’s Part in the Chain of Distribution of Ford UK Products
The plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, clutches and engine parts while working on Ford tractors and passenger cars in Ireland. The plaintiff and his wife brought suit after he developed peritoneal mesothelioma. Ford USA moved for summary judgment, arguing the parts to which the plaintiff alleged exposure were manufactured, distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford UK. Ford USA further argued the complaint was devoid of allegations supporting the claim that the court should pierce the corporate veil. While there was no basis …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded Where GE Failed to Satisfy Requirements of Federal Officer Removal Due to Plaintiff’s Specific Disclaimer of No Naval Asbestos Exposure
In this case, the plaintiff claimed that he was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma from products allegedly manufactured, supplied, installed, and/or distributed by numerous defendants. The plaintiff asserted in the complaint that he served in the U.S. Navy from 1962–66 but provided the disclaimer that the “[p]laintiff was not exposed to asbestos and is not bringing any claim for exposure to asbestos-containing products during Plaintiff’s service in the Navy.”
One of the defendants, General Electric Company (GE), removed the case to the U.S. District …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Reversed on Appeal for Brake Shoe Grinder Manufacturer on the Basis of Foreseeable Hazard With Inevitable Use and Normal Operation of its Non-asbestos Containing Product
The plaintiff’s decedent, who developed breathing difficulties and lung damage as a result of asbestos exposure, filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that from approximately 1958-62, he was a mechanic who utilized brake shoe arcing machines (known as “grinders”) manufactured by the defendant for the purpose of grinding down/reshaping the friction material of brake shoes via mechanical abrasion. When a grinder came into contact with a brake shoe which contained asbestos in is lining, it would release asbestos into the air. Accordingly, it was …
Continue Reading