Category: Case Decisions

Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Maryland / Motions in Limine / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony Precluded and Summary Judgment Granted Where Expert Opinion Did Not Rely Upon Sufficient Facts or Data

Plaintiffs Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., et al. filed suit against a number of companies, including defendant CBS Corporation of Delaware (Westinghouse), that allegedly manufactured and/or distributed products containing asbestos to which the plaintiff was exposed, thereby causing his mesothelioma.

The plaintiff offered Dr. Robert Leonard Vance as an expert in matters involving industrial hygiene and asbestos exposures.  Dr. Vance’s written opinion as to Westinghouse focused on two products:  asbestos “socks” and Micarta.  The plaintiff later conceded that that no liability existed as to the asbestos …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Ohio / Punitive Damages
Posted by:

Court Denies Honeywell’s Appeal on Expert and Causation Challenges and Reverses Directed Verdict on Punitive Damages in Plaintiff’s Favor

The defendant, Honeywell International appealed the judgment entered upon a jury verdict that found Honeywell was five percent responsible for the injuries of the decedent Kathleen Schwartz, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The amount of the judgment against Honeywell was $1,011,639.92. The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to grant a directed verdict against them on their claim for punitive damages.

Honeywell’s appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of motions in limine and the court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict. …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on Grant for Summary Judgment in Determination That Defendant Did Not Qualify as “Apparent Manufacturer”

The plaintiff, Harriette Stein, personal representative of the Estate of Carl Stein, filed an amended complaint with claims against defendant Pfizer under the theory that the decedent’s exposure to an asbestos-containing refractory cement, called “Insulag,” which was supplied to the decedent’s employer, Bethlehem Steel, by Pfizer’s subsidiary, Quigley Company, Inc., was a substantial factor in the decedent’s illness and eventual death from mesothelioma. The plaintiff alleged that Pfizer was the “apparent manufacturer” of this product because Quigley’s invoices and marketing materials bore Pfizer’s trademarks, as …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Connecticut
Posted by:

Court Dismisses Cross-Claims for Lack of Ripeness Since There Was No Judgment Against Ford Defendants

The plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants for violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, loss of consortium, fraud and premises liability, alleging that the plaintiff Kenneth Reed contracted mesothelioma as a result of direct and secondary exposure to asbestos. After the plaintiffs settled with or dismissed sixty-three of the defendants, the complaint was amended as to the only remaining defendants: Ford Motor Company, Bridge-Haven Ford Truck Sales, Inc. and Stamford Motors (collectively, the Ford Defendants). The Ford Defendants answered the amended complaint and, in …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland / Statute of Repose / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Boiler Manufacturers Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Statute of Repose

In this case, the decedent, Ralph Vitale, alleged exposure to asbestos from the installation of Burnham and Weil-McLain residential boilers during the course of his work through his own HVAC and plumbing business between 1966 and 1979.  Defendants Burnham, LLC and Weil-McLain, a division of the Marley-Wylain Company, moved for summary judgment  on the basis that no cause of action accrued against them pursuant to Maryland’s statute of repose, codified at Sec. 5-108 of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings article. Maryland’s statute of …

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

Summary Judgment Granted to Various Defendants For Lack of Product Identification Despite Inclusion in Interrogatory Responses in Take-Home Exposure Case

In this case, it was alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from laundering her husband, Eugene Blamowski’s, work clothes. Mr. Blamowski worked as a laborer at Bethlehem Steel from 1955-84, with the exception of his Army service from 1958-62. He and the decedent were married in 1965 and the decedent had laundered his clothes since that time. Several defendants, including Frontier Insulation Contractors, Beazer East, Riley Power, Inc., and Buffalo Pumps, Inc., moved for summary judgment based on lack of product identification and …

Continue Reading
Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Lack of Evidence of Asbestos Replacement Parts Supplied by Crane for Use in Crane Valves Key to Granting of Summary Judgment

The decedent died of mesothelioma; prior to his passing he filed a lawsuit in state court alleging exposure to asbestos while a production shift supervisor during his employment at a paper mill in Georgia. One defendant removed, and the action was transferred to MDL 875. Defendant Crane Co. filed for summary judgment, which was granted in part by the MDL court; however, it remanded to the Northern District of Georgia to determine whether the bare metal defense was available under Georgia law. Crane then moved …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Consolidation / New York
Posted by:

Applying Factors Outlined by the Second Circuit, New York Court Refuses to Consolidate Three Asbestos Cases for Trial

The plaintiffs moved to consolidate three cases for trial. Defendants American Biltrite and Kaiser Gypsum opposed. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate.

Courts consider six factors outlined by the Second Circuit in determining whether or not to consolidate individual plaintiffs’ cases for a joint trial where asbestos exposure is alleged: “(1) whether the plaintiffs worked at a common or similar worksite; (2) whether the plaintiffs had similar occupations, as a ‘worker’s exposure to asbestos must depend mainly on his occupation,’ such as those …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Missouri / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Diversity Jurisdiction Not Established Where Volkswagen Failed to Prove Fraudulent Joinder of Missouri Defendant

Nebraska plaintiffs filed an action in Missouri state court after the decedent died of mesothelioma.  After five defendants remained, defendant Volkswagen filed for removal based upon diversity jurisdiction, and alleged that the defendant, J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Company, a Missouri corporation, was fraudulently joined.  This matter was before the court sua sponte to determine whether jurisdiction existed.  Finding no jurisdiction, the court remanded.

Any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand.  In diversity jurisdiction, complete diversity exists where no defendant …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Summary Judgment Granted to Cleaver Brooks Because Vague Witness Testimony Not Enough to Establish Exposure

The decedent in this case, Michael Walashek, alleged exposure to asbestos from various products, including Cleaver-Brooks boilers, during the course of his work for various entities between 1967 and 1986. The exposure allegedly caused him to “suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death.” The plaintiff, Gail Walashek, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and other entities alleging claims of negligence and strict liability in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary …

Continue Reading