Author: Asbestos Case Tracker

Case Decisions / Illinois / Pleadings Challenge
Posted by:

Lung Cancer Case Transferred After Defendants Successfully Argue Forum Non Conveniens on Appeal

Plaintiffs Irvin and Marlene Rohl brought this action against several defendants including Caterpillar and Navistar. The plaintiffs argued that Mr. Rohl’s lung cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos from brakes, gaskets, clutches, engines, and heavy duty equipment made by Caterpillar and Navistar.

At the trial level,  the defendants moved to transfer the case from Cook County to Winnebago County on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court denied the motion after a finding that the plaintiff had attended trade school in Cook County …

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

Misidentification of Brake Manufacturer’s Name Sufficient for Summary Judgment

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Delaware claiming that Amanda Dullinger was secondarily exposed to Defendant Abex LLC’s asbestos containing brakes while she was a child causing her to develop mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s mother, Tammy Allen, was the plaintiffs’ primary product identification witness. Ms. Allen testified that Ms. Dullinger was present when automotive work was done between 1982 and 1986. Specifically, Ms. Dullinger testified that “Apex” brakes were one of the top three brands of brakes used around Ms. Dullinger. Further, she …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Washington
Posted by:

Raw Asbestos Supplier to Transite Pipe Manufacturer Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiff Donald Noll sued a number of manufacturers, sellers, and suppliers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including Special Electric. Noll alleged that he developed malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos when he worked construction in Washington between 1977 and 1979 cutting asbestos-cement pipes. Those asbestos-cement pipes were manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation, and CertainTeed received most of its asbestos from Special Electric.

Special Electric moved to dismiss on the basis that the trial court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over it because its contacts were limited to …

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

Insulation Supplier Contracting with U.S. Navy Protected by Government Contractor Defense

Jay Wanlass filed suit against Metalclad Insulation Corp. (Metalclad) based on alleged exposure to friable asbestos. Metalclad moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the First District Court of Appeal for Division 2 in California.

In 1968, Metalclad entered into an agreement with the United States Navy to supply insulation for piping on four nuclear-powered submarines. Those submarines were all constructed at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. The plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos …

Continue Reading
Insurance Coverage
Posted by:

Asbestos Plaintiffs Too Late to Take Advantage of Expansive Maryland Coverage Ruling

A large group of asbestos plaintiffs failed to file claims seeking more expansive coverage within the applicable statute of limitations.  MCIC Inc. (formerly McCormick Asbestos Company, “MCIC”) sold and installed asbestos insulation products. By the early 1970s, it was clear that asbestos was hazardous, and MCIC ceased selling and installing asbestos-containing products in approximately 1973.  In the late 1980s, several law firms collectively filed several thousand lawsuits against MCIC asserting personal injury claims resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The cases of 8,555 plaintiffs were …

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

Summary Judgment Reversed in Finding Co-Worker Testimony Personal Knowledge, Not Hearsay

Plaintiff Ruth Williams filed suit against multiple defendants, including Akron Gasket, as a result of her late husband’s development of mesothelioma. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that Mr. Williams was exposed to asbestos tape made by Akron while working at PPG Industries and Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Akron. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that co-worker testimony was hearsay and that medical causation could not be proven.

The court began its analysis by reminding …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Pleadings Challenge / Washington
Posted by:

Automotive Parts Manufacturer Granted Dismissal due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

In another decision out of the Hodjera suit in the Western District of Washington, the motions to dismiss of Dana Companies, LLC and Dana Canada Corporation (the defendants), were granted based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Dana Companies is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Dana Canada is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Ontario. The plaintiff alleged that he was exposed to asbestos in Toronto, Ontario, between 1986 and 1994. Neither company is registered to …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Louisiana / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Defendant Fails to Establish Improper Joinder in Mesothelioma Case; Remand Granted

Plaintiff Ronald Smith sued multiple defendants, including Honeywell, alleging he developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos. Honeywell removed the case the United States District Court, arguing that the plaintiff only joined defendant Taylor-Seidenbach Inc. to defeat diversity. The plaintiff moved to remand.

The case was originally set on an expedited trial date because of the mesothelioma diagnosis. Discovery was ongoing when the plaintiff produced his work history relied upon by the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Arthur Frank. Honeywell took the position that the work history …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Personal Jurisdiction / Washington
Posted by:

Action Dismissed Against Canadian Automotive Defendant Based on Lack of Specific Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Hodjera’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to the defendants’ products from 1986-94. Volkswagen of Canada (VWGC) moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.

The court started its analysis by stating that due process requires the court to have personal jurisdiction over the defendant before it can adjudicate a claim. General jurisdiction is available when the defendant’s “contacts are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home.” The court …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment / Take-Home Exposure
Posted by:

No New Facts Alleged in Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument; Reargument Denied

On February 2, 2017 the Superior Court of Delaware granted defendant Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center’s (Herty) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs since filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration of that order. Dorothy Ramsey alleged that Herty, a manufacturer of an asbestos paper product, negligently failed to warn her of the risks of take-home asbestos exposure due to her husband’s workplace exposure from 1976-80. The plaintiff alleged that Herty’s failure to warn of the danger was a proximate cause of the decedent’s …

Continue Reading