On November 18, 2015, a jury in California Superior Court for Alameda County awarded a near $7 million verdict against Union Pacific Railroad in a FELA case following a six week trial. The court had previously determined that $451,265.00 was the amount of economic damages. $6.5 million was awarded by the jury for non-economic loss and pain and suffering.
Continue ReadingAuthor: Jason A. Botticelli
Court of Appeals Vacates District Court’s Granting of Summary Judgment to Electrical Component Manufacturers Based on Decedent’s Testimony of Working With Products
In this federal court case, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s granting of summary judgment to defendants ABB, Schneider Electric, and Eaton.
The court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case. In it’s ruling, the court noted: “In order to prevail in products liability cases, a plaintiff must establish, at minimum, (1) the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s product, and (2) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury suffered.”(Citation omitted).
Regarding exposure, the court held: “Prior to …
Continue ReadingBoiler Manufacturer Ordered to Disclose All Documents Referencing Asbestos or Asbestos-Containing Materials
In this NYCAL case, a June 23, 2014 order denied defendant Cleaver-Brooks’ motion to vacate a November 9, 2013 order of the Special Master directing the production of “all its commercial files, all other relevant documents and records, and its index card database.” The order also denied Cleaver-Brook’s application for a confidentiality order and cost sharing.
In a unanimous decision, the appellate court modified the order holding that Cleaver-Brooks had to produce all documents that reference asbestos or asbestos-containing products, parts or components used for …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff Allowed to Substitute and Limitedly Amend Complaint, Several Cases Consolidated Against 3M Among Court Rulings on Daubert Hearings and Expert Preclusion
In these federal court cases there were several motions brought forward, including a motion by the plaintiff to substitute the estate and file a third amended complaint following the death of the decedent, defendant 3M’s motion to preclude the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Arnold Brody, and defendant Weyerhaeuser’s Daubert motion regarding the plaintiff’s experts Frank M. Mark, III, and Drs. Henry A. Anderson and Jerrold L. Abraham.
Regarding the plaintiff’s motion for substitution and to amend the complaint, the court held: “The court will grant the …
Continue Reading$6.6 Million Verdict Reinstated by Florida’s Highest Court After Analysis of Arguments on Alternative Design, Causation, and Jury Instruction on Failure to Warn
In this case, the plaintiff, William Aubin, claimed he was exposed to asbestos from SG-210, an asbestos product used in items such as joint compound and texture sprays that was manufactured by Union Carbide Corporation. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict of $6.6 million finding Union Carbide was liable, in part, under the plaintiff’s claims of negligence and strict liability. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict on three grounds: “(1) the trial court erred in failing to apply the Restatement …
Continue ReadingIn Severing Late Third-Party Claims Against Defendant with Federal Defenses, Court Remands Case That had Been Litigated in State Court for Almost Two Years
In this case, an action was brought in Jefferson Circuit Court asserting state-law claims for the asbestos exposure and death of the decedent, Glen Brown. Defendant General Electric Company (GE) was granted leave to assert a third-party claim against Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), who then removed the matter to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiff moved to remand the matter and to sever GE’s claims against TVA.
The court first looked at the severance of GE’s claims …
Continue ReadingBoiler Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Contradictory Testimony on Product ID
In this NYCAL case, the plaintiff, Mark Ricci, claims secondhand exposure to asbestos from his father’s work with boilers, including boilers manufactured by defendant Cleaver-Brooks. During the testimony of the plaintiff’s father, Aldo Ricci’s, he originally answered that he did not recall observing anyone working on a Cleaver-Brooks boiler. Later, during plaintiff’s counsel’s questioning, Aldo did identify Cleaver-Brooks. Based on the contradictory testimony, Cleaver-Brooks moved for summary judgment, arguing that Aldo’s identification of their product was prompted by the plaintiff’s counsel and should be disregarded. …
Continue ReadingTalc Manufacturer’s Motion to Quash Granted Based on Lack of Specific Personal Jurisdiction
In this California case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent, Oscar Villanueva, was exposed to asbestos contaminated talc from the use of Old Spice Talcum powder. Defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (WCD) was one of the suppliers of talc to Shulton, Inc. (Shulton), the former manufacturer of the Old Spice product. WCD moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court allowed plaintiffs the opportunity of jurisdictional discovery.
Following the discovery, the court granted WCD’s motion to quash. In its analysis, the …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded Based on Dismissal and Settlement of Defendants with Federal Defenses
This case was originally filed in the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison County. The defendant, Crane Co., removed based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) and defendant General Electric Company (GE) joined in. The plaintiff moved to remand the case and GE was the only defendant to oppose. Prior to the court rendering a decision, GE was dismissed from the case and Crane settled. CBS Corporation then filed a notice of joinder or removal, which the court found untimely.
The court granted …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Remands Action Based on Equity Even Though Removal Was Proper on Bankruptcy Issue
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs commenced an action against various defendants for the alleged asbestos exposure and development of mesothelioma for decedent, George Fenicle. Following decedent’s death, plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Boise Cascade Company and OfficeMax (“Defendants”). The defendants subsequently removed the matter to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1441, for putative federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. 1452, as a bankruptcy-related action. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was improper since the defendants did not seek approval from all …
Continue Reading