Boiler Defendant Had No Duty to Warn; Granted Summary Judgment

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, September 16, 2021

The decedent, John Grimes, and his domestic partner filed two lawsuits in New York State Court against two different sets of defendants, alleging that the decedent developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products while working at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the early 1960s.

The decedent testified that he worked aboard the USS Constellation, and defendant Foster Wheeler admitted that it manufactured boilers that were present on this …

Continue Reading

Court Refuses to Pierce Corporate Veil to Satisfy Personal Jurisdiction; Invites Motion to Transfer

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, August 9, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Eugene Paroni was exposed to asbestos while working at various jobsites from the 1960s through the 1980s. Paroni specifically alleged that one of the sources of his alleged exposure was from a “Ruston TA-1500” turbine that he encountered in the early 1970s at a plant in California. Paroni alleged that outside workers took apart and worked on the turbine equipment, which included asbestos blankets. The turbine …

Continue Reading

Proof of Claim Bankruptcy Documents Ruled Discoverable with Redaction of Settlement Amounts and Sensitive Medical Information

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe, July 15, 2021

In this case, the plaintiff moved for a protective order granting partial relief from Subpoenas Duces Tecum served on non-party bankruptcy trusts. The plaintiff requested redactions of information regarding settlement amounts, nonparty-affiant personal information, highly sensitive and personal medical issues, and claim specific identification information generated by the trusts. The plaintiff additionally moved for in-camera inspection citing privacy concerns, while conceding that there was not privilege or prejudice.

The defendants opposed …

Continue Reading

Removal by Laundry Equipment Manufacturer Untimely Based on Service of Plaintiffs’ Discovery Responses

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, July 8, 2021

Plaintiffs Domenic and Carol Pezzo brought suit against numerous defendants, alleging that the defendants exposed Domenic to asbestos through the course of his employment in various private and public sector roles. On December 10, 2020, almost three months after the suit was initiated, defendant AMETEK, Inc. removed the action to federal court, invoking federal officer removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) based on information learned through discovery. The plaintiffs argued …

Continue Reading

Floor Tile Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment Due to Issues of Fact

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, May 19, 2021

Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 arguing that the only product manufactured by defendant which matches plaintiff Pietro Camiolo’s (the decedent) description of the alleged asbestos product he worked with, never contained asbestos, and that there is no evidence that any Goodyear brand floor tile with which decedent may have worked actually contained asbestos. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.

The court noted that …

Continue Reading

Flooring Manufacturers’ Summary Judgment Reversed due to Question of Fact on Causation

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, May 26, 2021

The plaintiff, Victoria Pistone, and her husband, suing derivatively, brought this asbestos action against American Biltrite, Inc. and Mannington Mills, Inc., among other defendants. The defendants moved separately for summary judgment based on a lack of causation. Judge George R. Peck granted summary judgment. The plaintiffs appealed.

The plaintiff alleged that exposure to asbestos caused her to develop peritoneal mesothelioma. She claimed she was exposed to the defendants’ flooring products from approximately 1973 …

Continue Reading

Denial of Summary Judgment Affirmed as to Fireproofing Contractor

As previously reported by the Asbestos Case Tracker, Judge Manuel Mendez, former NYCAL coordinating judge, denied defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co., Inc.’s (M&D) motion for summary judgment. M&D appealed this decision. The Appellate Division noted that the court properly denied M&D’s smmary judgment motion since it failed to unequivocally establish that the materials it used could not have contributed to plaintiff’s injury. Moreover, the court noted that in light of the decedent’s testimony, which M&D submitted in support of it motion, identifying the …

Continue Reading

Wire and Cable Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Causation Denied

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, May 11, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Alvin Smith, was exposed to asbestos from skinning, stripping, and pulling asbestos-containing wire and cable manufactured by the defendant, Ericsson, Inc.’s predecessors, Anaconda Wire & Cable Company and Continental Wire & Cable Company, at various locations throughout his career. Mr. Smith testified during his deposition that he was exposed to asbestos dust during his work with these products. Ericsson moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff failed …

Continue Reading

Premise Owner Denied Summary Judgment due to Issues of Fact

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, May 10, 2021

Before the court is defendant National Grid Generation LLC d/b/a National Grid’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for a finding in favor of National Grid on the grounds that there is no merit to the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint against National Grid, and there are no triable issues of fact against National Grid. 

By way of background, this matter arises from Alvin Smith’s (the decedent) diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, which the …

Continue Reading

Two Friction-Based Juni Motions Denied in Nassau County

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, May 12, 2021

The plaintiff in this matter was a career auto-mechanic. He alleged asbestos exposure from car parts manufactured by various defendants, including Ford and Mercedes, caused his lung cancer.

Ford and Mercedes each filed summary judgement motions alleging that (1) the plaintiff could not establish specific exposure and (2) that the causation opinions of the plaintiff’s experts should be precluded. Ford sought an order for a Frye hearing while Mercedes sought a hearing …

Continue Reading