Purifier Defendant Granted Summary Judgment as Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Causation

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2021

Defendant Alfa Laval filed this present amended motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs allege the decedent, John Dale Wineland (decedent or Mr. Wineland), worked aboard a series of Navy ships including the USS Dynamic, USS Pledge, USS Loyalty, USS Tuscaloosa, and USS Esteem from 1963 to 1984, where he was exposed to asbestos from Alfa Laval products aboard these ships. The decedent worked in the engine room where he …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Affirmed for Premises Defendant on Causation Grounds

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston, July 13, 2021

The plaintiff, Thelma Mullins, alleged that the decedent, Donald Mullins, was exposed to asbestos while working at ARCO’s petrochemical plant. The plaintiff claimed that the asbestos exposure caused the decedent to develop mesothelioma, which led to his death. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of ARCO, which the plaintiff appealed.

By way of background, the plaintiff alleged that the decedent had worked at ARCO’s plant from approximately 1967 to 1983 …

Continue Reading

Aircraft Manufacturer Granted Motion to Dismiss Due to Lack of Specific Personal Jurisdiction

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, June 28, 2021

Paul Klick III (the plaintiff) was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about July 17, 2020, after allegedly being exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Air Force between 1967 and 1971. Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that he breathed the airborne dust created from mechanics under his direct supervision maintaining, removing and installing asbestos-containing friction and insulation products on Boeing aircrafts, B-52G and KC-135A. The plaintiff’s work involving Boeing products …

Continue Reading

Two Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment Due to Insufficient Evidence as Required by Applicable Law

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, June 15, 2021

As previously reported by Asbestos Case Tracker, the plaintiff alleges that the decedent Richard Nybeck developed lung cancer following occupational exposure to asbestos. Defendants Ford Motor Company (Ford) and defendant, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (Buffalo) filed motions for summary judgment. The allegations as Ford stem from the decedent’s work during high school at his father’s gas station in Michigan. As to Buffalo, the …

Continue Reading

Floor Tile Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment Due to Issues of Fact

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, May 19, 2021

Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 arguing that the only product manufactured by defendant which matches plaintiff Pietro Camiolo’s (the decedent) description of the alleged asbestos product he worked with, never contained asbestos, and that there is no evidence that any Goodyear brand floor tile with which decedent may have worked actually contained asbestos. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.

The court noted that …

Continue Reading

Denial of Summary Judgment Affirmed as to Fireproofing Contractor

As previously reported by the Asbestos Case Tracker, Judge Manuel Mendez, former NYCAL coordinating judge, denied defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co., Inc.’s (M&D) motion for summary judgment. M&D appealed this decision. The Appellate Division noted that the court properly denied M&D’s smmary judgment motion since it failed to unequivocally establish that the materials it used could not have contributed to plaintiff’s injury. Moreover, the court noted that in light of the decedent’s testimony, which M&D submitted in support of it motion, identifying the …

Continue Reading

Premise Owner Denied Summary Judgment due to Issues of Fact

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, May 10, 2021

Before the court is defendant National Grid Generation LLC d/b/a National Grid’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for a finding in favor of National Grid on the grounds that there is no merit to the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint against National Grid, and there are no triable issues of fact against National Grid. 

By way of background, this matter arises from Alvin Smith’s (the decedent) diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, which the …

Continue Reading

Denial of Summary Judgment Reversed as to Joint Compound Manufacturer

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, April 20, 2021

In this matter, Judge Manuel Mendez, former NYCAL coordinating judge, denied defendant Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc’s motion for summary judgment on January 13, 2020. Kaiser Gypsum appealed arguing that plaintiffs failed to identify defendant’s products as a source of the decedent’s alleged exposure to asbestos. Further, the only evidence presented was the inadmissible hearsay statement of a coworker of the decedent and his son when they were working together at some point from …

Continue Reading
judge with gavel

Pump Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment on Causation Grounds

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, April 28, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Carl E. Gay, was exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy and the United States Air Force from 1946 to 1958 and 1958 to 1967, respectively; and while employed by General Electric Co. from 1967 to 1974 and Stone and Webster from 1974 to 1989; and from performing Shadetree automotive work beginning in the 1940s. Mr. Gay was deposed over the course of nine …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Summary Judgment Upheld as to Manufacturer and Supplier of Asbestos Insulation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, April 27, 2021

On June 11, 2017, Charles F. Connor (the decedent) died at the age of 90 of mesothelioma. Following his death, his son Darrell Connor (the appellant), individually and as executor of Mr. Connor’s estate, brought a wrongful death action. The appellant named 22 defendants and stated a plethora of causes of action arising under both federal and North Carolina law. All of the appellant’s claims boil down to one straightforward accusation: that the …

Continue Reading