In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Clovis Aresnault, commenced an action in the Northern District of Indiana alleging exposure to asbestos while working in steel mills in Illinois and at a plant located both in Illinois and the Northern District of Indiana. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of the multi-district litigation. The case was remanded back to Indiana after an order granted part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff subsequently moved to transfer the case …
Continue ReadingAuthor: Jason A. Botticelli
Certainteed Obtains Spoliation Charge on Missing Pipe and Defense Verdict Following Two-and-a-Half Week Trial
On July 7, 2016 a Florida jury rendered a defense verdict on behalf of building products manufacturer Certainteed Corporation (“Certainteed”). In this case, it was alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma from his work cutting couplings on Certainteed asbestos-containing irrigation pipe next to his family property for an approximate two-week period in either 1969 or 1970. Through discovery it was learned that some of the pipe was removed and reinstalled. After finding witnesses who were able to testify where the …
Continue ReadingWhat Does New York’s Decision on Duty to Warn Mean Going Forward in Asbestos Litigation?
New York’s highest court has imposed a duty on equipment manufacturers to warn about asbestos containing products manufactured by other manufacturers. This long-awaited decision now resolves the duty issue, but what does it mean going forward in asbestos litigation?
On June 28, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in the Dummitt/Suttner cases that Crane Co. had a “a duty to warn of the danger arising from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product which, as …
Continue Reading$22 Million Verdict Against Burnham in NYCAL Case
On June 24, 2016 a NYCAL jury awarded a plaintiff, Frank Gondar, $22 million. The award was broken down $12 million for past pain and suffering and $10 million for future pain and suffering. Mr. Gondar was living and had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. He owned a part-time construction company from 1953 to 1973 and allegedly was exposed to asbestos form working in the vicinity of others working with and on residential boilers. The jury found that Burnham failed to provide adequate warnings, which was …
Continue Reading$6.25 million Jury Verdict In NYCAL Case Against Boiler Manufacturers
On June 13, 2016 a NYCAL jury awarded plaintiff $6.25 million for the death of the decedent, Vincent Geritano, who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. The only defendants remaining at trial were Burnham and Crown Boiler Co. The jury found Burnham liable, but not Crown. Burnham was assessed 9 percent liability, with several other entities sharing the remainder of the liability.
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Granted to Various Defendants For Lack of Product Identification Despite Inclusion in Interrogatory Responses in Take-Home Exposure Case
In this case, it was alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from laundering her husband, Eugene Blamowski’s, work clothes. Mr. Blamowski worked as a laborer at Bethlehem Steel from 1955-84, with the exception of his Army service from 1958-62. He and the decedent were married in 1965 and the decedent had laundered his clothes since that time. Several defendants, including Frontier Insulation Contractors, Beazer East, Riley Power, Inc., and Buffalo Pumps, Inc., moved for summary judgment based on lack of product identification and …
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 ReadingFederal Court Analyzes New Jersey State Law in Granting Unopposed Summary Judgment Motions of Six Defendants
In this federal court case, the plaintiff, James McCourt, alleged exposure to asbestos from serving in the Navy (1962-66), working as a pipefitter (1961-62 and 1966-68), home renovations (1952-60), automotive repair work (1959-98), and from the clothing of his father from products manufactured by various defendants. Six defendnats, Guard-Line, Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, PSEG Power, and DAP, Inc., moved for summary judgment.
While the plaintiff did not oppose the defendants’ motions, the court still analyzed each motion under New Jersey …
Continue ReadingPartial Motion to Dismiss of Talc Suppliers and Auto-Body Filler Granted Without Prejudice, Giving Plaintiff Time to Amend Claims of Concerted Acts and Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation
This action was originally commenced by the plaintiff in the Southern District of New York and alleged that the decedent, Pedro Rosado-Rivera, was exposed to asbestos-containing auto-body filler while working in auto shops in New York (1959-1968), Puerto Rico (1968-1992) and then thereafter in Florida. The defendant BASF Catalysts LLC’s, joined by other defendants Superior Materials, Inc. and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., motion to transfer the case to the middle district of Florida was granted. (BASF and Whittaker were talc suppliers and Superior was …
Continue Reading