Federal Court of Appeals Remands Case for Determination of Colorable Federal Defenses Alleged by Shipyard

In this case, the plaintiffs’ decedent claimed exposure to asbestos containing thermal insulation while working at the Avondale Shipyard in Louisiana as laborer and painter from 1948-1996. The shipyard at issued worked on contracts for the federal government.

The defendants removed the case under federal officer removal and took the position that removal was proper since the government, through Navy inspectors, was involved in the building of the ships and had control of safety issues during construction. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that …

Continue Reading

Even Applying Relaxed Product Identification Standards of New York Law, Plaintiff Fails to Establish Exposure to Five of Six Defendants Moving for Summary Judgment

The decedent, a lifetime electrician, passed away in 2014 of lung cancer. Prior to passing, he filed a lawsuit for asbestos exposure against numerous manufacturers.  Six defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing lack of exposure — Rockwell Automation (Allen-Bradley); BW/IP International (Byron Jackson); Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo); Gardner Denver; Schneider Electric (Square D); and Warren Pumps.  The court granted all motions, except that of Allen-Bradley.

The decedent claimed exposure to Warren pumps while serving as a civilian employee on board the U.S.S. Constellation.  …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Affirmed Where Plaintiff Failed to Produce Sufficient Evidence of Asbestos Exposure

In this case, the plaintiff Melvin Desin, an electrician, alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while working at various job sites in the 1960s and early 1970s, including on seven or eight occasions in the vicinity of painters employed by defendant Zelinsky, a painting contractor. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he worked in close proximity to the Zelinsky workers, who patched and sanded walls and joint compound in his presence. However, the plaintiff could not identify the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Affirmed as Evidence of Asbestos Impurities in Auto Body Filler Only Equated to a Possibility of Asbestos Exposure

In this case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, John DePree, was exposed to asbestos from various products, including the use of Bondo auto body filler in the 1970s to repair dents in his cars.  BASF Catalysts, LLC moved for, and was granted, summary judgment based on its argument that the plaintiffs could not offer more than a mere possibility of exposure to asbestos from a BASF product since any asbestos in the Bondo talc was an impurity and not an intended ingredient. The plaintiffs …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Joint Trial Denied Since Individual Issues Between Plaintiffs Predominated Over Any Common Questions of Law and Fact

The plaintiffs, who had the same attorneys, commenced personal injuries actions in Nassau County Supreme Court, alleging personal injuries as a result of exposures to asbestos.  In support of the motion, it was noted that each plaintiff was still alive and suffering from lung cancer, were exposed to the same or similar materials during a similar time frame, that common defendants existed, and that the non-parties would overlap.  The defendants opposed on several grounds, including that the distinctions between the individual plaintiffs made joinder inappropriate …

Continue Reading

Although Plaintiff’s Claims Within 1986 Manville Settlement Order, Case Remanded to Bankruptcy Court to Determine If Plaintiff Received Due Process

The plaintiff, Salvador J. Parra, Jr., developed asbestosis after working as an insulator and sued Marsh USA, Inc., an insurance broker, and others. Marsh filed a motion in the bankruptcy cases of Johns-Manville, arguing it was relieved of liability for the plaintiff’s claims. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The district court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Marsh was Manville’s primary insurance broker from 1944-1982. Manville had sued Marsh, …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Overturned on Triable Issue as to Medical Monitoring of Plaintiff’s Asbestos-Related Pleural Plaques

In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Robert Hanson, filed a complaint in 2010 against various defendants, including “Doe” defendants, alleging asbestos exposure caused his asbestosis. In 2012, the plaintiff substituted Collins Electrical Company for one of the Doe defendants. In 2013, Collins moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of asbestosis or any asbestos-related injury. While the motion was pending, the plaintiff was allowed to file a first amended complaint, which removed any reference to asbestosis and claimed …

Continue Reading

Federal Court Applies Bare Metals Defense in Finding Boiler Manufacturer Not Liable for Asbestos Supplied by Third Parties

After the plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging strict liability and negligence due to asbestos exposure from his work insulating and maintaining boilers. It was transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL, then remanded back to Wisconsin federal court. Defendant Trane U.S., Inc. then moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) it did not assume the liabilities of American Standard, and (2) American Standard did not manufacture, distribute or specify the asbestos materials that caused decedent’s injuries. The court granted the motion …

Continue Reading

Despite Satisfying Foreseeability, Illinois Federal Court Finds No Duty in Secondary Take Home Exposure Case

The plaintiff filed an action for negligence in Illinois state court, alleging she contracted mesothelioma through “take home” exposure from her son, who used asbestos friction paper while working as a mechanic. The defendants removed to federal court based on diversity. Defendant MW Custom Papers LLC, as successor-in-interest to Mead Corporation, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe her a duty. The court granted the motion.

First, MW argued the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts as to foreseeability. The court …

Continue Reading

Vague and Conclusory Evidence in Support of Federal Officer Removal Rights Insufficient, Case Remanded to California State Court

The plaintiff in this case, the decedent’s wife, alleged secondary exposure to her husband through asbestos brought home by the decedent’s father while working as an aircraft mechanic on the base of the Army National Guard. Defendant The Boeing Company removed on federal officer grounds, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand when four defendants remained — Pep Boys, Continental Motors, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and IMO Industries. Goodyear was the only defendant which opposed the motion to remand. The court granted the plaintiff’s …

Continue Reading