Motion for Reconsideration Based Upon Change in Law Denied as Untimely

DELAWARE — Plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans filed a lawsuit on June 11, 2015 in Delaware Superior Court relating to Mr. Evans’ alleged asbestos exposure. Foster Wheeler removed the matter to federal court on August 4, 2015, pursuant to the federal officer removal statute. Defendants Foster Wheeler and Warren Pumps filed motions for summary judgment in October 2016. Both motions were opposed. The district court issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 30, 2017, recommending that the motions be granted pursuant to maritime law, …

Continue Reading

Boiler Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Reversed; Question of Fact on Product ID and Denial of Bare Metal Defense

CALIFORNIA — In this federal court case, the plaintiffs commenced an action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the plaintiff’s decedent, Robert Hilt, was exposed to asbestos from numerous products, including Foster Wheeler boilers, on Navy ships . Foster Wheeler moved for and was granted summary judgment based on the finding that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Charles Ay’s, opinion was speculative.  Subsequently all other defendants either settled or were dismissed from the case. The plaintiff appealed the order granting Foster Wheeler summary judgment and …

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Consider Manufacturer’s Liability for Asbestos-Containing Component Parts

PENNSYLVANIA — The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit submitted a Petition for Certification of Question Law on the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether, under Pennsylvania law, a manufacturer as a duty to warn about the hazards of asbestos relating to component parts it has neither manufactured or supplied and (2) if such a duty exists, what is the appropriate legal test to determine liability.

On October 26, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to consider these issues and instructed parties …

Continue Reading

Standard Based Approach in Bare Metal Defense Permits Sailors to Recover in Negligence

The plaintiffs filed suit in negligence and strict liability against several defendants arguing their decedents died from mesotheliomas as a result of their exposure to asbestos containing products for which defendants were responsible. Both plaintiffs alleged exposure while working on-board naval vessels. The defendants removed the case to federal court and summary judgment was granted in their favor on the bare metal defense. The plaintiff separately appealed on the issues of negligence. The appeal was remanded to sort out the negligence issue against the backdrop …

Continue Reading

Various Defendants Granted Summary Judgment Under Maritime Law Bare Metal Defense

Plaintiffs Stephen and Marilyn Charlevoix filed this asbestos related personal injury action in Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on July 10, 2015. Crane removed the action to this court on August 21, 2015. The plaintiff stated that Mr. Charlevoix was first exposed to asbestos-containing products during his service as a boiler tender with the U.S. Navy from 1961 to 1964 aboard the USS Valley Forge. After his service in the Navy, Mr. Charlevoix worked at Grede Foundry from 1964 to 1966 as a grinder. …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Recommended for Naval Boiler Manufacturer on Issues of Product Identification and Bare Metal Defense

The plaintiff filed suit alleging Mr. Tallman developed mesothelioma while serving in the U.S. Navy from 1947-67. Foster Wheeler removed the case to the United States District Court.

Mr. Tallman served on board the USS Caloosahatchee as a boiler tender from 1948-56. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that Mr. Tallman’s mesothelioma developed as a result of exposure to asbestos for which Foster Wheeler was responsible. Two fact witnesses were offered for deposition. Mr. Nealon testified that he served on board the USS Caloosahatchee from 1951-54. He …

Continue Reading

Bare Metal Defense Rebuts Plaintiffs’ Causation Argument for Majority of Industrial Equipment Manufactures

Patricia Carroll, as special administrator of Ronald Carroll’s estate, sued numerous manufacturers of industrial equipment in which asbestos replacement parts were used, manufacturers of asbestos, or both in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The claims against the defendants arise from the time Mr. Carroll spent working at Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L) from 1959 to 1974. Mr. Carroll worked in a variety of different jobs WP&L’s plants during that period of time, including plant helper, auxiliary equipment operator, and boiler operator.…

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Recommended for Turbine and Valve Defendants in Mesothelioma Case

The plaintiff’s executrix brought this claim against multiple defendants alleging that her decedent, Mr. Denbow, developed mesothelioma as a result of his work in the U.S. Navy onboard the USS New Jersey from 1954-57 and while working at Koppers Chemical from 1965-70.

The plaintiff relied upon the testimony of product identification witness Charles Ricker. Although not sure when he met Mr. Denbow, he testified that he met him while working as a machinist mate in engine room Nos. 2 and 4 during his stint on …

Continue Reading

Exception to Boiler Manufacturer’s Bare Metal Defense Found in Denial of Summary Judgment

James Stevens served as a boiler technician aboard the USS Allagash from July 7, 1951 until October 11, 1952. The boilers on the Allagash were manufactured by Foster Wheeler and included asbestos containing materials in their construction. Foster Wheeler additionally provided additional asbestos containing materials to be used in the boilers. Mr. Stevens was diagnosed with mesothelioma and passed away in 2015.

The plaintiffs brought suit against various defendants, including Foster Wheeler, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging Mr. …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Granted as to Two Defendants and Denied for Several Others in Bare Metal Defense Case

The plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma while working aboard ships as an engine man, machinery repairman, and machinist mate.

The defendants moved for summary judgment again after the court announced it would not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s version of the bare metal defense. The court concluded that “the bare metal defense should immunize only a narrower range of conduct.”

Summary Judgment is appropriate when the court determines that there is no genuine dispute as to material …

Continue Reading