Summary Judgment Not Warranted Where Issues of Material Fact Exist on Successor-Liability Issues 

Supreme Court of New York, County of Erie , August 25, 2022

In this asbestos action, plaintiff Eric Cislo alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from his father’s work with Bison boilers from 1969 until the early 1980s.  

Prior to 1969, Farrar and Trefts Inc. manufactured and sold Bison boilers, and underwent “a series of acquisitions, mergers, name changes, and successors,” becoming ADSCO Manufacturing Corp. Soon thereafter, ADSCO Manufacturing Corp. changed its name to Sterlstand Incorporated.  

Following several successive acquisitions, successions, and name changes, ADSCO Manufacturing …

Continue Reading

Brake Manufacturer’s Proof Insufficient to Meet Summary Judgment Burden

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, July 28, 2022

In this asbestos action, decedent Roy Barbarino alleged exposure to asbestos from brake lining as a bus maintainer for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from 1962 to 1987. Defendant Abex moved for summary judgment, contending that they could not have caused or contributed to Barbarino’s injury, as Barbarino did not identify an Abex product. Instead, Barbarino identified another brake manufacturer during his deposition. Further, the deposition testimony of two of Barbarino’s co-workers …

Continue Reading

Joint Compound Supplier’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied; Corporate Representative’s Testimony Inadmissible

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, June 15, 2022

In this asbestos action, decedent Anastasios Katechis alleged exposure to asbestos from joint compound he used as a painter for Mamais Construction from 1967 to 1971. During his deposition, Katechis identified defendant Allied Building Products Corp. as a supplier of joint compound during that time.

Allied moved for summary judgment, contending that they could not have caused or contributed to Katechis’ injury as Allied did not supply joint compound while the decedent worked for …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Decisions Denying Summary Judgment to Floor Tile Manufacturer Reversed

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, July 19, 2022 

On July 19, 2022, the First Department reversed three New York City Asbestos Litigation (“NYCAL”) decisions that denied summary judgment to Defendant, American Biltrite, Inc. (“ABI”), finding that the plaintiffs could not prove specific causation, and thus summary judgment to ABI was in fact warranted. In other words, the plaintiffs were unable able to show that exposure to ABI’s floor tiles were the cause or a contributing factor to the Plaintiffs’ alleged diseases. …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Verdict Against Talc Product Manufacturer Reversed on Causation Grounds

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, July 19, 2022

In 2017, Plaintiff Donna Olson (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), claiming that her lifelong use of J&J talcum powder exposed her to asbestos and caused her to develop mesothelioma. After a 12-week jury trial in 2019, a New York City jury found J&J liable and awarded damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $325 Million. In November 2020, the trial court reduced the award to $120 Million, but affirmed the …

Continue Reading

New York’s Grieving Families Act May See First Update In Over 100 Years

The current wrongful death statute in New York, which has been in place since 1847, may get a revamp in the coming months. Senate Bill S74A, also known as the Grieving Families Act (“the Act”) is currently awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature. Full language of the statute is available here.

If signed, the Act will expand compensable damages in wrongful death actions to include emotional losses such as grief and anguish to the types of damages that family members would be entitled to recover. …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue Trailer Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Motion Denied

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, June 29, 2022

In this asbestos action, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to reargue a motion for summary judgement filed by defendant Strick Trailers, LLC (“Strick”), which was granted on October 13, 2021.

By way of background, the plaintiff, James Martinez, alleged he was exposed to asbestos from replacing brakes on delivery trailers manufactured by Strick. Plaintiff was unable to testify as to the maintenance history of Strick trailers, nor did he …

Continue Reading

Pump Manufacturer Successful on Summary Judgment

Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, June 6, 2022

Plaintiffs Lisa and Edward Gavin filed a lawsuit to recover damages for the injuries Lisa allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by defendants during her employment with Courter and Company from 1978 to 1980.

Defendant Sterling Fluid Systems LLC (USA), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, arguing that the plaintiff did not allege asbestos exposure from its pumps, and that there was no evidence that …

Continue Reading

Court Grants Equipment Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Denies Plaintiffs’ Request for Jurisdictional Discovery

State of New York, Supreme Court, County of Monroe, May 16, 2022

Plaintiffs John and Jayne Gaub commenced an asbestos-related lawsuit on February 22, 2021, against several defendants, including Textron, Inc., sued individually and as alleged successor to Bridgeport Machines, Inc. (defendant) for damages from personal injuries from Mr. Gaub’s alleged asbestos exposure from various products, including brakes changed in his presence on Bridgeport machines. All of Mr. Gaub’s work with and around Bridgeport products occurred in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Mr. Gaub was diagnosed with …

Continue Reading

Motions for Summary Judgment in Jones Act Matter Denied on Statute of Limitations and Causation Grounds

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, May 9, 2022

In this asbestos action, decedent Carlo Badamo served on several vessels during his time as a merchant marine from 1944 to 1955. Thereafter, he alleged that he developed asbestos-related cancer and brought a claim under the Jones Act. Three defendants: Farrell Lines, Chiquita, and Chevron, brought motions for summary judgment contending that the decedent’s claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The defendants assert that the decedent underwent X-ray …

Continue Reading