Plaintiffs Frank Romano, Sr. and Lynne Rome Romano filed suit in the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish against a number of defendants on September 12, 2014, after Romano contracted mesothelioma allegedly caused from occupational asbestos exposure. For a brief background, Romano grew up in Marrero, Louisiana and lived about two blocks away from the Johns-Manville Corporation’s plant for 20 years before he went away for college. As a result of this Johns-Manville connection, two defendants filed a third party demand against CRMC, a successor in …
Continue ReadingCategory: Louisiana
Defendant Fails to Establish Improper Joinder in Mesothelioma Case; Remand Granted
Plaintiff Ronald Smith sued multiple defendants, including Honeywell, alleging he developed mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos. Honeywell removed the case the United States District Court, arguing that the plaintiff only joined defendant Taylor-Seidenbach Inc. to defeat diversity. The plaintiff moved to remand.
The case was originally set on an expedited trial date because of the mesothelioma diagnosis. Discovery was ongoing when the plaintiff produced his work history relied upon by the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Arthur Frank. Honeywell took the position that the work history …
Continue ReadingPort Commission’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Granted Where Plaintiff’s Work was Predominantly Land Based
Mr. Genusa developed mesothelioma as a result of his work as a longshoreman, truck loader, and warehouse worker from 1963-1999. Mr. Genusa passed away and a claim was paid by Baton Rouge Marine Contractors (BRMC) and Signal Mutual Indemnity under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.
The plaintiffs instituted this action against 13 defendants that allegedly “designed, tested, evaluated, manufactured, packaged, furnished, stored, handled, transported, installed, supplied and/or sold asbestos containing products to recover the benefits paid to Mr. Genusa’s wife. The last standing …
Continue ReadingLaws of Two States Applied to Two Different Issues
The plaintiff alleged the decedent, who died of mesothelioma, was exposed to asbestos while serving as an engineman, machinery repairman, and machinist mate in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s. Although the majority of the decedent’s exposure occurred on four ships, to which maritime law applied, the plaintiff also alleged exposure during the six months decedent trained at a land-based naval academy in Idaho. Here the court decided whether Idaho or Louisiana applied to this six-month time frame. The plaintiff argued Louisiana law applied, and …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Granted as to Two Defendants and Denied for Several Others in Bare Metal Defense Case
The plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma while working aboard ships as an engine man, machinery repairman, and machinist mate.
The defendants moved for summary judgment again after the court announced it would not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s version of the bare metal defense. The court concluded that “the bare metal defense should immunize only a narrower range of conduct.”
Summary Judgment is appropriate when the court determines that there is no genuine dispute as to material …
Continue ReadingDaubert Challenges Result in Experts Being Allowed to Testify Regarding General Causation; Not Specific Causation
In this federal court case, it was alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in various job duties while in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s. The plaintiff brought two Daubert motions seeking to preclude the defendants’ experts, Drs Michael Graham and Mark Taragin, from testifying. Dr. Graham is a forensic pathologist and Dr. Taragin is an epidemiologist. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motions.
The court would allow each expert to provide general causation testimony …
Continue ReadingPain and Suffering Damages Found as Pecuniary Under Maritime Law; Summary Judgment Granted in Part and Denied in Part
The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff, John Bell, lacked standing to pursue a wrongful death or survival action under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Specifically, the defendants relied on the language in DOHSA, which stated that “when death of an individual is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may bring a civil action” and the …
Continue ReadingFavorable Defense Discovery Rulings, Including Preclusion of Treating Physicians from Testifying as Experts
The district court issued two opinions in the same case, issuing various rulings on motions brought by both parties. The plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure while employed by Freeport Sulphur Company, predecessor to Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc. This case started in Louisiana state court, and was removed by Mosaic. The primary rulings on these motions are summarized below.
The plaintiff moved to exclude evidence of settled claims and collateral sources of compensation. The defendants argued that both settlement agreements and collateral …
Continue ReadingCertain Bankruptcy Trust Information Ruled Discoverable in Louisiana
The plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer due to his asbestos exposure while working on the premises of Freeport’s Port Sulphur facility, other facilities, and various drilling rigs. The defendants removed to federal court on the bases of original jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoena and notice of records deposition, and a motion for protective order. The court analyzed both at the same time, as both contained substantially the same arguments.
Defendant McCarty Corporation issued …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff Fails to Satisfy Burden to Vacate Defense Verdict
Plaintiff Dan Freeman filed a Seaman’s Petition for Damages against a number of defendants under state law, general maritime law, and the Jones Act on July 26, 2011. Freeman alleged that while he was working on drilling rigs, he was exposed to asbestos drilling mud products, and ultimately developed “asbestos maladies” as a result of the defendants’ asbestos products.
By the time of trial in 2015, only two defendants remained, to which the jury returned a defense verdict dismissing all claims with prejudice. Freeman timely …
Continue Reading