In this case, the plaintiff worked as an auto mechanic and performed brake work in the 1960s and 1970s. Defendant Genuine Auto Parts moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for willful and wanton conduct. The plaintiff opposed the motion, essentially pointing to the general state of knowledge as to the hazards of asbestos, but failed to offer any evidence that Genuine Auto Parts consciously made a decision to sell asbestos-containing products with knowledge of the decision. The dismissal of the claim …
Continue ReadingCategory: Case Decisions
Brake Manufacturer Obtains Dismissal of Claims of Willful and Wanton Conduct
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from a variety of automotive parts while working as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family. The defendant, brake manufacturer Genuine Parts, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that it committed false representation and fraud regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs opposed, offering among other things historical documents, an expert …
Continue ReadingBrake Manufacturer Obtains Dismissal of Claims of Willful and Wanton Conduct
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from a variety of automotive parts while working as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family. The defendant, brake manufacturer Genuine Parts, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that it committed false representation and fraud regarding the dangers of asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs opposed, offering among other things historical documents, an expert …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Court Consolidates Some Cases But Not Others
In this NYCAL decision, the court assessed the consolidation of five remaining cases and ended up grouping two cases into Trial Group 1, two cases into Trial Group 2, and left one case to be tried on its own. The court’s reasoning for the decision is the following:
“Applying the Malcolm factors, I conclude the cases are properly consolidated into Trial Group 1 and Trial Group 2, with the Valensi case to be tried separately. Valensi is distinguishable from the other cases, as it is …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Court Denies Post-Verdict Disclosure of Settlement Amounts and Agreements
In this NYCAL case, defendants Cleaver Brooks, Inc. and Burnham LLC brought post-verdict motions on a variety of issues, including disclosure of settlements for the purpose of molding the judgment. By the time the motion was heard, the remaining issues were if “plaintiffs failed to disclose settlements in a timely fashion, and, if so, whether such failure affected defendants ability to present evidence with respect to Article 16 entities, and whether defendants are entitled to disclosure of the settlement agreements, including the amounts of settlement …
Continue ReadingCrane Co. Granted Summary Judgment in Two California Federal Court Cases
In two separate decisions, Crane Co. was granted summary judgment on different grounds in two federal court cases. In the first, a Southern District case, Crane moved on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not show that the decedent, Michael Walashek, was exposed to asbestos from any of its products. In support of its motion, Crane relied on the plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses where they failed to identify any specific documents supporting the claimed exposure against Crane.
In granting the motion, the court held that Crane …
Continue ReadingRhode Island Superior Court, Applying Ohio Law, Dismisses Claims Based on Bare Metal Defense and Statute of Repose
This case involves an interesting discussion regarding the conflict between Ohio and Rhode Island law on the bare metal defense, the sophisticated user doctrine, state of the art, the open and obvious defense, the statue of repose, joint and several liability, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. The Rhode Island court ruled that Ohio law applied to this case on those issues and proceeded to consider the defendants’ summary judgment motions under Ohio law.
On the bare metal defense, the court granted summary judgment to the …
Continue ReadingCourt Rules on Personal Jurisdiction Issues Involving Dana Corporation
In this Rhode Island case, the court granted the plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether certain Dana companies were subject to jurisdiction in Rhode Island: “This Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate as to any ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ business contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island. However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana Holding or Dana Companies.”
Continue ReadingGeorgia Court Dismisses Negligent Failure to Warn Claim Against Local Vendor, But Not Manufacturer
In this case, the plaintiff claimed she was exposed to asbestos through laundering her father’s clothing. There was testimony that her father worked with insulated piping manufactured by CertainTeed Corp. and supplied by a local vendor, Davis Meter and Supply Company. The lower court granted summary judgment to CertainTeed and Water Applications Distribution Group, the successor to Davis Meter and Supply, claiming that there was no duty to warn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that there were factual issues regarding CertainTeed’s …
Continue ReadingNorth Carolina Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment
In this case, “plaintiffs allege that his condition resulted from exposure to asbestos during his employment as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family.” The court granted JMM’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that plaintiffs alleged exposure prior to 1983 but denied with respect to any claimed exposure after 1983. This was based on JMM’S acquisition of assets of one of the Johns Manville …
Continue Reading