Category: Case Decisions

California / Case Decisions / Statute of Limitations / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Summary Judgment in Favor of Bankrupt Wisconsin Company Affirmed on Statute of Limitations Grounds

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
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Deposition Testimony Presents Sufficient Evidence to Overcome Automobile Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment

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
Case Decisions / New York / Personal Jurisdiction
Posted by:

Gasket Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied Based on Residual Market

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
California / Case Decisions
Posted by:

Take Home Exposure Insufficient to Overcome Demurrer Based Upon Exclusivity Provision of Workers’ Compensation Act

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
Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

PA Superior Court Affirms Entry of Summary Judgment for Three Friction Defendants

PENNSYLVANIA — The plaintiff, Sharon Gilbert, filed suit as the executive of the estate of her husband, Guy Gilbert, and in her own right, alleging decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as an auto mechanic at Alray Tire in Pittsburgh, PA from 1975 to 1985.  The plaintiff alleged that such exposure caused decedent’s mesothelioma.  The decedent was not deposed before his death.  Two witnesses, decedent’s co-worker and manager at Alray, were deposed.  The manager testified that Alray purchased replacement parts from several automotive suppliers, …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Washington
Posted by:

Judgment on the Pleadings Upheld for Dissolved Washington Corporation

WASHINGTON — The plaintiffs allege that William Clayton developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during his military service. They sued numerous defendants, including Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Saberhagen), which was a Washington corporation that dissolved on August 22, 2013. Based on plaintiffs’ failure to file suit against Saberhagen within three years of dissolution, as required by Washington law, Saberhagen filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs opposed the motion and filed their own to extend the response deadline.

Pursuant to Washington statutory …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New Jersey / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

$650,000 Verdict Vacated Based on Lack of Evidence That Cement Manufacturer Was “Exclusive Supplier” to Boiler Company

NEW JERSEY — The plaintiff’s Decedent William Condon and Plaintiff Debbie Condon originally filed suit in 2014 against 97 defendants, alleging that Decedent’s exposure to asbestos from their products caused his mesothelioma. On June 19, 2014, a Law Division judge denied Defendant Pecora Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. Of the defendants who settled with the plaintiff, nine did so before trial. At trial, the jury apportioned liability and damages between eleven defendants, including Pecora. Six of the eleven defendants went to trial; the others were …

Continue Reading
Asbestos Litigation Analysis / Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Removal Under Federal Enclave Jurisdiction Deemed Timely

PENNSYLVANIA — The plaintiff, Harald Mehnert, filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, alleging he suffered from mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure incurred while working on Mass Spectrometers at the U.S. Geological Survey Department in Denver, Colorado, from 1959 to 1995. He filed suit on November 27, 2017 and all defendants were served with process by January 17, 2018. The complaint did not allege the location of the plaintiff’s work. On April 3, 2018, the plaintiff served answers to interrogatories indicating that …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment / West Virginia
Posted by:

West Virginia Law Applied in Granting Summary Judgment Due to Speculative Testimony”

DELAWARE — The plaintiff’s decedent, Marchie Dolley, a lifetime non-smoker, passed from lung cancer. The sole product identification witness was his son, Ringo, who testified about his father’s work as a truck mechanic at Ryder Truck Rental and General Truck Delivery. Ringo visited his father at the former job and later worked with him at the latter. He could not offer any specific testimony about how many times he worked on certain manufacturer’s trucks at either job, or whether original or replacement parts were used.…

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Damages / New Jersey / Other Asbestos News
Posted by:

Admission into Evidence of Testimony and Answers to Discovery of Settled Defendants Leads to New Trial Ordered on Issue of Apportionment

NEW JERSEY — Donna Rowe (plaintiff), individually and as executrix and executrix ad prosequendum of the estate of Ronald Rowe (Rowe), appealed an April 27, 2015 judgment of $304,152.70 plus prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs originally sued 27 defendants, alleging that exposure to asbestos from their products caused Rowe’s mesothelioma. Twelve defendants were granted summary judgment, four were dismissed, and two never appeared and the claims against them were abandoned. Additionally, eight parties settled their claims before trial, leaving only Hilco, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Universal …

Continue Reading