NEW YORK – The plaintiffs sued dozens of defendants, including Cleaver-Brooks, alleging that Frederick Brown developed an asbestos-related injury as a result of exposure to the defendant’s products. The complaint was filed in July 2017. The plaintiff served answers to interrogatories in October 2017. The responses stated in pertinent part “…While performing my sheet metal worker duties, I was exposed to asbestos from the work I did as well as from the work of tradesmen around and in close proximity to me who were cleaning, …Continue Reading
As we have seen nationwide, plaintiffs assert claims against various types of defendants in asbestos litigation, including product manufacturers, suppliers, and premises owners. Even further, some of the product manufacturers may or may not have actually manufactured asbestos-containing products, whereas others’ products merely required the use of asbestos-containing component parts. Even more proliferating as to the possible types of claims, there are different standards related to the plaintiffs with direct asbestos exposure versus take-home cases, where the individual injured never worked directly with or around …Continue Reading
WASHINGTON – In a case extensively covered by the Asbestos Case Tracker, the court granted the summary judgment motion of defendant, Crosby Valve LLC. The decedent, Rudie Klopman- Baerselman, alleged that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos through his work as a merchant mariner aboard several vessels. The defendant argued that there was no evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from a Crosby valve and that there is no evidence that asbestos from a Crosby Valve product was …Continue Reading
On November 15, 2019, a Monroe County jury returned an $8 million verdict in the Wayne Meissner case, involving a 73-year-old plaintiff who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2018. According to the plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories, he alleged asbestos exposure from home remodeling work from 1963 to 1966, as well as from work for Keene Insulation in 1967 and Eastman Kodak from 1967 to 1979. There was one defendant, a construction contractor, which remained at trial at the time of the verdict.
The jury …Continue Reading
The plaintiff, Daniel Bannister, filed a petition for damages against numerous defendants alleging asbestos exposure that resulted in his diagnosis of mesothelioma. After his death, plaintiffs Patricia Ann Bannister, Shannon Rose Jordan, Daniel E. Bannister Jr., Dolphus Jacob Bannister, Anna Kay Springer, and Grayson Humble Bannister were substituted as proper-party plaintiffs. The defendant did not file an answer to the lawsuit, but rather filed a declinatory exception raising the objection of lack of jurisdiction over the person, and challenging the propriety of Louisiana court’s jurisdiction …Continue Reading
The plaintiff, Janet Stimson, filed a Motion for Reargument on behalf of her husband, Gary Stimson, following the court’s decision granting summary judgment on behalf of the defendant, J-MM, on the issue of product identification.
The plaintiff alleged that
- The court misapprehended the facts relevant to the decedent’s identification of J-MM’s A/C pipe
- The deposition testimony of a J-MM employee from an unrelated 2014 case constitutes newly discovered evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding product identification
The court was also provided …Continue Reading
As the Asbestos Case Tracker recently reported, on August 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently ruled on several defendants motions for summary judgment. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Rudie Klopman-Baerselman (decedent) was exposed to asbestos-containing products sold or supplied by the supplier defendant, causing the decedent to develop mesothelioma in July 2017 and pass away in November 2017. In the supplier defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it argued that:
- The plaintiff was unable to identify
In Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Paul Williams, as Executor of the Estate of Vickie Williams, the court of appeals affirmed a trial court’s denial of the sole defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In this case, Vickie Williams’ father worked for Schneider Electric USA, Inc., formerly known as Square D Company (Square D), for several years. During that time, she allegedly encountered asbestos brought home on her father’s clothing. Ms. Williams also worked for Square D for a few months as a teenager. She …Continue Reading
The plaintiff, Doris Gordon, alleged that she developed fatal mesothelioma in part from her use of asbestos-contaminated Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder that was manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendant, Colgate-Palmolive. Colgate sought exclusion of the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Ronald Gordon. The court considered Colgate’s Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Gordon’s testimony and a separate motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding the plaintiff’s testing because of lack of authenticity and relevance of the talc tested. The Daubert motion was granted, and …Continue Reading
The federal district court for the District of South Carolina granted the motion of defendant Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company, to realign certain defendants in the case as plaintiffs in order to create diversity jurisdiction in the federal court.
The overall matter is an insurance coverage dispute among Covil Corp., a now-defunct company that once manufactured asbestos-containing thermal insulation, and its insurers, regarding underlying personal injury claims. In 2018, Covil was subjected to a $38 million judgment in one of the underlying suits, and it …Continue Reading