DELAWARE — Following up on a prior ACT post, where a Delaware jury returned a verdict of over $40 Million in favor of the widow of a deceased auto mechanic, defendant, who was attributed a liability share of 20 percent, filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, remittitur. The defendant argued among other things, that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent and the amount of damages …Continue Reading
DELAWARE — The plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Superior Court of Delaware on November 2, 2016 against various defendants asserting claims arising out of an alleged exposure to asbestos suffered by the plaintiff Earl Janis, Jr. (Janis). The case was removed to federal court on February 16, 2017 pursuant to the federal officer removal statute under U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1). On June 4, 2018, three similarly situated defendants (manufacturers of pumps located on naval ships) filed summary judgment motions that are at issue in this …Continue Reading
LOUISIANA — The plaintiff Victor Michel (plaintiff) initially filed suit in state court on July 28, 2017, alleging asbestos exposure as a result of his work as a mechanic and generator service technician from 1965-2005. The defendants removed the case to federal court on May 8, 2018. After the case was removed to federal court, a status conference was held at which the court asked the parties to notify it of any remaining discovery. There was no discussion as to any further expert discovery. The …Continue Reading
CALIFORNIA — On November 14, 2018, before the Honorable Timothy Canning, a Northern California state jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The jury found the defendant not liable for the plaintiff Carla Allen’s mesothelioma. The plaintiff initially filed suit earlier this year, pleading both negligence and strict liability causes of action, and alleged that defendants knew its talcum products contained asbestos and were likely hazardous to the health of consumers. The main allegation in this case centered on the …Continue Reading
CALIFORNIA — In the matter of Frank C. Hart, he Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California reversed a lower court’s judgment against defendant after finding the testimony of plaintiff’s key witness was inadmissible hearsay.
The plaintiff Frank C. Hart filed suit alleging that his mesothelioma diagnosed was caused by exposure to asbestos from his work in construction as a pipe layer. The paintiff alleged that defendant supplied asbestos-containing piping that exposed him to asbestos. The lower court’s judgment was primarily based on a …Continue Reading
OREGON — An Oregon jury delivered a defense verdict for defendant Chanel on September 17, 2018 after a four-week trial in a living pleural mesothelioma claim. Chanel asserted an spontaneous etiology defense and the jury unanimously found that (i) Chanel was not negligent and (ii) was no defect in the Chanel cosmetic talc product allegedly used by plaintiff in this case.…Continue Reading
VIRGINIA — Following up with a prior ACT post on the Harry Goodrich matter pending in the United States District Court, E.D., Virginia, the Court has issued an omnibus opinion concerning motions in limine.
Among other issues decided, the court addressed the plaintiffs’ motion to limit the testimony of defendants’ naval expert, Margaret McCloskey (McCloskey). Pursuant to Rule 702, the plaintiffs sought to limit the testimony of McCloskey in four (4) respects: (i) as unqualified to opine about plaintiffs actual exposure to asbestos-containing thermal insulation …Continue Reading
NEW YORK — The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015 (55 years old) and passed away about fifteen (15) months later in July 2016. Thereafter, in October 2015, the plaintiff’s estate brought suit in NYCAL against a number of defendants alleging that the decedent’s mesothelioma diagnosis and death was caused by decedent’s exposure to asbestos from products that were manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the defendants. This case ultimately went to trial and was presided over by Justice Manuel Mendez. In April 2018, …Continue Reading
CALIFORNIA — The plaintiff Randolph Morton (Plaintiff or Morton) filed this personal injury claim in California state court alleging that Morton’s asbestos-related disease was allegedly caused by the defendants’ acts and omissions involving the use of asbestos at or in the vicinity of Morton’s workplace.
The defendant removed the case to federal court (United States District Court, Central District of California) based on federal office removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Here, defendant seeks to put forth the government contractor defense, which outlines that …Continue Reading
NEW JERSEY — On October 30, 2015, The plaintiffs Thomas Grimes and Estelle Grimes Estelle Grimes initially filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County against a number of defendants alleging that Mr. Grimes’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to defendants’ asbestos or asbestos-containing products. Shortly thereafter, the case was removed to the United States District Court, District Court of New Jersey, following Defendant Crane’s Notice of Removal relating to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).
Pursuant to …Continue Reading