California Jury Finds Defendant’s Talc Did Not Contain Asbestos Superior Court of the State of California, April 5, 2019

CALIFORNIA — In Blinkinsop v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., a California jury found that a defendant’s talcum powder did not contain asbestos, and therefore rejected the plaintiff’s claims that his use of the defendant’s products caused his mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s case was filed in September 2017, two months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, alleging that his use of personal care products up through the 1980s caused his “likely terminal” illness. Following a five-week trial, a Long Beach jury deliberated for less than…
Continue reading...

Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Provision Leads to Dismissal of Construction Worker’s Complaint U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, March 31, 2019

WISCONSIN — Plaintiff Johnson Carter filed suit against Henry Carlson’s Construction Company (HCCC) alleging he suffered “a variety of severe medical symptoms” after exposure to asbestos while working for HCCC as a temporary construction worker. Specifically, he claimed that he was exposed to asbestos during a demolition of a hospital in the late 1980s. He could not recall the name of the temporary agency or hospital, but stated that he was provided a dust mask for the tear-out work. HCCC moved to dismiss the complaint…
Continue reading...

Fifth Circuit Affirms Preemption of Claims Under Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, March 18, 2019

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the appeal of pro se appellant, Johnny Kirkland. He alleged suffering injuries as a result of asbestos exposure while working for Huntington Ingalls in the 1970s. The district court found that plaintiff’s claims related exclusively to his work for Huntington Ingalls in the field of ship construction and repair, and were therefore governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The plaintiff did not dispute that the Huntington…
Continue reading...

Motion for Nonsuit Granted in Los Angeles Talc Trial California Superior Court for Los Angeles County February 5, 2019

CALIFORNIA — Following a four-week trial, nonsuit was entered just prior to closing arguments in a talc mesothelioma trial venued in Los Angeles state court. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, Colgate-Palmolive moved for nonsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to present a prima facie case linking the use of Cashmere Bouquet talcum products to the plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiffs responded by arguing that they only had to prove that fibers from the defendant’s product contributed to the aggregate dose of asbestos to…
Continue reading...

Delaware Court Upholds Jury Verdict in Favor of Auto Mechanic Superior Court of Delaware, January 31, 2019

DELAWARE — Following up on a prior ACT post, where a Delaware jury returned a verdict of over $40 Million in favor of the widow of a deceased auto mechanic, defendant, who was attributed a liability share of 20 percent, filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, remittitur. The defendant argued among other things, that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent and the amount of damages…
Continue reading...

New York’s Highest Court Upholds Defense Judgment as a Matter of Law Based on Lack of Sufficient Scientific Evidence New York State Court of Appeals, November 27, 2018

NEW YORK — New York’s highest Court issued its first decision addressing causation standards in an asbestos case, and upheld the trial and intermediate appellate court decisions granting Ford Motor Company judgment as a matter of law in Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co. et al.. ACT has previously reported on the Juni matter here and here. The majority found that “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment in Favor of Bankrupt Wisconsin Company Affirmed on Statute of Limitations Grounds California Court of Appeal, First District, November 26, 2018

CALIFORNIA — Plaintiff David Hart appealed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Special Electric Company on the basis that the claims against the company were time-barred under Wisconsin law. The plaintiff sued Special Electric alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from products supplied by the company. Special Electric, a Wisconsin corporation, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in 2004, and by 2006, a plan of reorganization had been entered. By then, all of the company’s assets had been sold…
Continue reading...

Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Presents Sufficient Evidence to Overcome Automobile Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, August 15, 2018

DELAWARE — Plaintiffs John and Vicki DeCastro originally filed a personal injury action against multiple defendants in the Superior Court of Delaware, asserting claims arising from Mr. DeCastro’s alleged harmful exposure to asbestos. The case was properly removed to Federal Court under the federal officer removal statute. Mr. Castro alleged that he developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos during his service in the United States Air Force, civilian employment with Pacific Bell Telephone and United Airlines, and personal automotive and…
Continue reading...

Gasket Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied Based on Residual Market State of New York Supreme Court, County of Monroe, August 3, 2018

NEW YORK — The plaintiff’s Decedent Joseph Tolan allegedly worked with asbestos-containing gaskets, including sheet gaskets, manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear) starting in 1977 at the United States Army’s Seneca, NY Depot. Goodyear filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that it ceased making asbestos-containing gaskets in 1969. Goodyear further argued that it had no sales of asbestos-containing gaskets to the Depot.  Goodyear continued to make non-asbestos gaskets after 1969, and they had similar markings and logos to the asbestos-containing versions. Goodyear…
Continue reading...

Take Home Exposure Insufficient to Overcome Demurrer Based Upon Exclusivity Provision of Workers’ Compensation Act California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, July 23, 2018

CALIFORNIA — Plaintiffs, Allen and Pamela Rudolph, filed suit against Rudolph & Setten, Inc. (R&S), a general contracting company started by Allen Rudolph’s father, alleging that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos as a child from take home exposure via his father, and also while employed by the company himself.  R&S filed a demurrer to the suit, alleging that the claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of California’s workers’ compensation act.  The demurrer was sustained by the trial court.  The plaintiffs filed an amended…
Continue reading...