Category: Case Decisions

Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Applies Delaware’s Borrowing Statute in Granting Defendants’ Summary Judgment on Statute of Limitations

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that his lung cancer was caused by exposure to several defendants’ asbestos-containing products while he was working in Michigan. The plaintiff and his wife filed their claim in Delaware and all defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action was untimely under the Delaware statute of limitations, which they claimed applied pursuant to Delaware’s “Borrowing Statute,”10 Del. C. 8121.

The court agreed and granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The court pointed out that the parties had agreed …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Expert B Reader Found Qualified to Testify on Exposure and Causation

In this federal court case, the defendants moved to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Matthew Vuskovich, arguing that he was not qualified to testify, his testimony was not sufficiently reliable, and his opinions were based on the “every exposure” theory.

The court denied the motion, finding Dr. Vuskovich’s credentials as a certified B Reader to be adequate. Regarding the reliability of his testimony and the “every exposure” argument, the court held: “Dr. Vuskovich does state that asbestosis is a cumulative disease, which …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Expert Found Qualified to Testify and Pump Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment on Frequency, Regularity, and Proximity Argument

In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1954 to 1958 while aboard the USS Roosevelt, USS Bremerton, and USS Intrepid. Several defendants moved to limit the trial testimony of the plaintiff’s proffered expert, Dr. Jerome Spear, arguing that his report and testimony rely on the “every exposure” theory, his opinions are based on unreliable scientific methodology, and his testimony would not assist the jury. The defendant, Ingersoll-Rand Company (“Ingersoll-Rand”), also moved for …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / North Carolina
Posted by:

John Crane Inc. Establishes Prima Facie Entitlement to Summary Judgment

In this federal court case, defendant John Crane Inc. moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and the court stated that it “may consider the forecast of evidence presented by the movant to be undisputed for the purposes of the present motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).”

In granting Crane summary judgment, the court held: “To prove causation in North Carolina, a plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case ‘must present “evidence of exposure to a specific product on a …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Illinois
Posted by:

Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Expert Witness and Defendant’s Investigation of Juror Do Not Warrant New Trial

In this federal case, the plaintiff, Charles Krik, sued Owens-Illinois and ExxonMobil and claimed they negligently exposed him to asbestos, causing his lung cancer. The case went to trial and a verdict was returned in favor of the defendants as the jury found that the plaintiff’s smoking was the sole cause of his lung cancer. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial, arguing that the exclusion of his expert was in error and prejudicial and that Mobil’s investigation of contact between the plaintiff and …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction
Posted by:

Federal Court Refuses to Maintain Supplemental Jurisdiction After Plaintiff Amends Complaint

In this federal court case, the decedent, Thomas Maguire alleged exposure to asbestos while he served as a metalsmith in the Navy between 1958 and 1961, and then again while working as a steamfitter aboard Navy ships between 1962 and 1963. The defendant, Crane Co. removed the case to federal court based on the federal officer statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The plaintiff’s original motion to remand was denied, but they were granted leave to amend the complaint to remove all federal claims and defenses. The …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Pleadings Challenge
Posted by:

National Grid Successfully Opposes Co-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Cross-Claims

In this NYCAL action, the plaintiff, Michael Koulermos claimed he developed mesothelioma from working near employees of Treadwell Corp. while he was employed at the Northport Power Station. The plaintiff subsequently agreed to a no-opposition summary judgment motion on behalf of Treadwell. However, the co-defendant, National Grid, opposed the motion’s requested dismissal of any cross-claims.

The court agreed with National Grid and held: “Treadwell has failed to establish a prima facie case that National Grid’s cross-claims have no merit. Treadwell makes no specific argument as …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Pennsylvania
Posted by:

Court Grants Non-Party Expert’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Even Though Items Sought Deemed Relevant

In this federal court motion, Dr. Arthur Frank moved to quash the subpoena served on him by Honeywell International Inc. as a defendant in a pending Eastern District of North Carolina asbestos case, Yates v. Ford Motor Co., et al.  Honeywell subpoenaed Dr. Frank, a prolific plaintiff’s expert in asbestos cases and a non-party to the North Carolina action, concerning his successful lobby of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to change language on its website and in its “Fact Sheets” regarding cancer risks to …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions / Maritime/Admiralty Law
Posted by:

California Appellate Court Holds No Duty for Vessel Owner Based on No Active Control

In this mesothelioma case, the decedent worked for a vessel repair company and performed repair work on a vessel involving pipe insulation possibly containing asbestos. His estate sued the vessel owner under “both the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 United States Code section 905(b) (the Act, or section 905(b)) and state law.” The vessel owner moved for summary judgment on a number of  grounds, including that it did not actively control the area where the alleged exposure occurred. The lower court granted the …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Louisiana
Posted by:

Plaintiffs’ Concession to Not Pursue Navy Exposure Results in Remand Under Federal Officer Removal Statute

In this case, the plaintiffs claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos in connection with force draft blowers manufactured by Carrier Corporation and another defendant while in the Navy on board the USS Edson. The plaintiffs moved to remand after Carrier removed the case based on federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). In granting the motion to remand, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that despite the exposure, they expressly disclaimed any intention to pursue damages in connection with any Navy exposure: “In …

Continue Reading