David E. Rutkowski, Author at Asbestos Case Tracker

Supreme Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert “Cumulative Exposure Theory” Does Not Fit Georgia Causation Standard and Reverses Judgment in Favor of Defendant

In a follow up to a case previously reported on in ACT, the Georgia Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of Georgia with respect to the admission of testimony from the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerrod Abraham, and his “Cumulative Exposure Theory.”

This case first commenced when the plaintiff and his wife, Roy and Milva Knight, sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., alleging that Roy’s mesothelioma was caused from exposure to asbestos while he was working …

June 28, 2016 Case Decisions / Consolidation / New York

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Duty to Warn Exists for Manufacturer of Products Required to be Used With Third Party Asbestos-Containing Products

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (Dummitt v A.W. Chesterton, et al.), June 28, 2016

The plaintiff, Doris Kay Dummitt, filed suit in the New York Supreme Court, alleging her husband, Ronald Dummitt, was diagnosed with and passed away from mesothelioma from asbestos exposure as a result of work as a Navy boiler technician from 1960 to 1977. Plaintiff commenced this negligence and strict liability claim against Crane Co. and various other defendants who manufactured asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation. In the course …

June 23, 2016 Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Louisiana / Summary Judgment

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Causation Expert Upheld on Appeal Due to Failure to Consider Decedent’s Smoking History

The plaintiffs, Dwayne Bourdeaux, Gerilyn Cook, and Bryan Bourdeaux, Individually and as Proper Parties in Interest for Gerald Bourdeaux, filed suit in Louisiana alleging that Gerald Bourdeaux lung cancer diagnosis and eventual death was asbestos exposure. In support of this claim, the plaintiffs offered Dr. Gerald E. Liuzza, a pathologist, as an expert witness to establish the causative link between the asbestos exposure and lung cancer.

Defendant Trinity Industries, Inc. filed a motion in limine to preclude Dr. Liuzza from testifying at trial on the …

June 23, 2016 Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Florida / Motions in Limine

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Federal Court Limits Plaintiff’s Expert, Dr. William Longo’s, Testimony

The plaintiff, Marsha K. Dugas, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Darryl S. Dugas, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, alleging that Darryl Dugas developed mesothelioma from his exposure to asbestos during the late 1960s and early 1970s, while serving in the U.S. Navy and attributing that exposure to several products allegedly manufactured by various defendants. In support of this claim, the plaintiff retained Dr. William Longo to provide an expert opinion as to the …

June 17, 2016 Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Verdict Reduction

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Pennsylvania Federal Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Mold Verdict and Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Apply Delay Damages to Compensatory Damages

The plaintiff-decedent, Valent Rabovsky, and his wife Ann Rabovsky filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, claiming that the plaintiff-decedent, who had worked as a millwright in the 1950s, developed malignant mesothelioma from work-related exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products, which were produced, manufactured, and/or distributed by various defendants (Case was removed to Federal Court three months later).

On February 2, 2016, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether defendant Crane Co. was negligent in failing to warn …

June 9, 2016 Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Maryland / Motions in Limine / Summary Judgment

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony Precluded and Summary Judgment Granted Where Expert Opinion Did Not Rely Upon Sufficient Facts or Data

Plaintiffs Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., et al. filed suit against a number of companies, including defendant CBS Corporation of Delaware (Westinghouse), that allegedly manufactured and/or distributed products containing asbestos to which the plaintiff was exposed, thereby causing his mesothelioma.

The plaintiff offered Dr. Robert Leonard Vance as an expert in matters involving industrial hygiene and asbestos exposures. Dr. Vance’s written opinion as to Westinghouse focused on two products: asbestos “socks” and Micarta. The plaintiff later conceded that that no liability existed as to the asbestos …

June 6, 2016 Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Ohio / Punitive Damages

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Court Denies Honeywell’s Appeal on Expert and Causation Challenges and Reverses Directed Verdict on Punitive Damages in Plaintiff’s Favor

The defendant, Honeywell International appealed the judgment entered upon a jury verdict that found Honeywell was five percent responsible for the injuries of the decedent Kathleen Schwartz, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The amount of the judgment against Honeywell was $1,011,639.92. The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to grant a directed verdict against them on their claim for punitive damages.

Honeywell’s appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of motions in limine and the court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict. …

June 2, 2016 Case Decisions / Maryland / Summary Judgment

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on Grant for Summary Judgment in Determination That Defendant Did Not Qualify as “Apparent Manufacturer”

The plaintiff, Harriette Stein, personal representative of the Estate of Carl Stein, filed an amended complaint with claims against defendant Pfizer under the theory that the decedent’s exposure to an asbestos-containing refractory cement, called “Insulag,” which was supplied to the decedent’s employer, Bethlehem Steel, by Pfizer’s subsidiary, Quigley Company, Inc., was a substantial factor in the decedent’s illness and eventual death from mesothelioma. The plaintiff alleged that Pfizer was the “apparent manufacturer” of this product because Quigley’s invoices and marketing materials bore Pfizer’s trademarks, as …