Crane 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 Reading

Plaintiff’s Expert Industrial Hygienist Found to Be Qualified to Offer Testimony on Non-Specific Levels of Asbestos Exposure

In this federal court case, the decedent, Sally Gros Vedros, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from laundering her father’s work clothes during the time he worked as a welder at the Avondale shipyard from 1943 to 1976 and from her own work at Avondale in the purchasing department from 1960 to 1963. The defendant, Bayer CropScience, Inc., which was the successor to several companies that formerly were known as Amchem Company, moved to preclude plaintiff’s industrial hygienist, Frank Parker, III, from testifying, …

Continue Reading

Mixed Ruling on Brake Manufacturers’ Motions to Preclude Case Reports

In this federal court action, it is alleged that the plaintiff, Graham Yates, was exposed to asbestos brake products while working in various employment positions and from working on his own vehicles. The defendants, Ford Motor Company and Honeywell International, Inc. moved in limine on several different grounds to preclude case reports. The court ruled as follows:

The defendants challenged the case reports on the grounds of relevancy and reliability. In a lengthy analysis, the court denied the motion. Regarding relevance, the court looked at …

Continue Reading

Mixed Ruling on Brake Defendant’s Motion in Limine on Expert Testimony Regarding Corporate Conduct

In this federal court action, it is alleged that the plaintiff, Graham Yates, was exposed to asbestos brake products while working as a gas station attendant from 1956-1957, as a parts salesman and delivery driver for a Ford dealership in the 1960s, as a clerk in an automobile parts warehouse from 1961-1962, and from working on his own vehicles in the 1950s and 1960s. The defendant, Ford, brought a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony regarding corporate conduct. The court provided a lengthy analysis …

Continue Reading

In Wisconsin: Single Fiber Theory on Causation Held Scientifically Unreliable; Longo Precluded; Castleman Opinion Partially Precluded

In two asbestos cases, Owens Illinois, Inc. sought to exclude an opinion by the plaintiffs’ experts that “any exposure to asbestos, no matter how slight, remote or insignificant, is a cause or substantial contributing factor in causing Plaintiffs’ diseases.” The company also sought to exclude the testimony and testing of William Longo under FRE 702. The plaintiffs did not substantively oppose these motions and the court granted them without opposition.

With respect to the plaintiffs’ “state of the art expert,”  Barry Castleman, Owens Illinois …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Issues Bombshell Decision, Ruling Exposure to Friction Products Is Incapable of Causing Mesothelioma and Rejecting the Cumulative Exposure Theory

In a decision that could change the landscape of NYCAL asbestos litigation in New York, Justice Barbara Jaffe issued a post-trial decision following an $11 million verdict against Ford, essentially precluding Drs. Steven Markowitz and Jacqueline Moline on Frye grounds because there is no established scientific connection between exposure to friction products and mesothelioma. Additionally, Justice Jaffe ruled that the plaintiff’s theory of cumulative exposure without quantifiable exposure is insufficient to establish legally sufficient asbestos exposure.

Justice Jaffe determined that the testimony of the plaintiff’s …

Continue Reading

Federal Court Precludes Plaintiff Aircraft Expert Under Daubert and Grants Summary Judgment

In this case, the plaintiffs pursued an action claiming that the  decedent, while working as an aircraft electrician for the U.S. Air Force between 1952 and 1961, was exposed to various electrical component parts. Several electrical component part defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that the plaintiffs did not meet the threshold exposure standard under California law. In opposing the motion, the plaintiffs relied on the expert testimony of Mark Thomson, an experienced pilot and civilian aviation mechanic and custodian of one of the world’s …

Continue Reading

Under Georgia Law, Appellate Court Rejects Defendant’s Daubert Challenge to Dr. Abraham and Allows Punitive Damage Claim

In this case, the plaintiff and his wife, Roy and Milva Knight, sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., alleging that Roy’s mesothelioma was caused from exposure to asbestos while he was working as an independent sheet metal contractor at Scapa’s facility. It was alleged that Scapa used asbestos fibers in its manufacturing process and there was asbestos insulation on pipes and boilers. The plaintiffs also sued Union Carbide Corp., claiming that it supplied asbestos to non-party Georgia Pacific, which made joint compound that Roy used on …

Continue Reading

Industrial Hygienist William Dyson’s Dose Reconstruction Methodology for Assessing Levels of Asbestos Exposure Found Scientifically Reliable Under Daubert

The plaintiff in this Louisiana federal court case alleged that decedent pipefitter was exposed to asbestos while at various locations during his career, including a one-to-two-week period at Union Carbide. Union Carbide offered the expert testimony of industrial hygienist Dr. William Dyson to perform a dose reconstruction assessment of the decedent’s level of asbestos exposure throughout his life and specifically during the one-to-two-week period at Union Carbide. The plaintiff moved to preclude Dr. Dyson’s opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert principles. In …

Continue Reading