This opinion addressed potential causation testimony offered by the plaintiffs in two cases. In one case, the plaintiff’s decedent died of mesothelioma prior to being deposed. The decedent’s nephew and co-worker testified during deposition that his uncle was exposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker at shipyards, and while installing furnaces, from the 1960s-70s. His testimony included exposure to insulation, packing, gaskets, and pipe covering used in connection with Crane valves. In the second case, the decedent, a career Navy man, died …
Continue ReadingCategory: New York
New York Court of Appeals Opts for “All Sums” Allocation in Asbestos Coverage Case
In a landmark ruling, the New York Court of Appeals held that “all sums” allocation and vertical exhaustion applied in a case involving coverage for injuries related to asbestos exposure. The court based its holding on the language of the insurance policies, which included non-cumulation clauses or non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions.
The plaintiffs, Viking Pumps, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC acquired pump manufacturing businesses from Houdaille Industries in the 1980s. These acquisitions later subjected Viking and Warren to significant potential liability in connection with …
Continue ReadingHighest New York Court Refuses to Pierce Corporate Veil, Citing Lack of Evidence Establishing Ford USA’s Part in the Chain of Distribution of Ford UK Products
The plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, clutches and engine parts while working on Ford tractors and passenger cars in Ireland. The plaintiff and his wife brought suit after he developed peritoneal mesothelioma. Ford USA moved for summary judgment, arguing the parts to which the plaintiff alleged exposure were manufactured, distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford UK. Ford USA further argued the complaint was devoid of allegations supporting the claim that the court should pierce the corporate veil. While there was no basis …
Continue ReadingNew York Judge Vacates Award of Past and Future Pain and Suffering to Plaintiff Against Brake Grinder Manufacturer and Orders New Trial on Damages Unless Plaintiff Stipulates to Reduced Awards
The plaintiff, Walter Miller, filed suit against a number of defendants alleging that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos through his use of a brake grinding machine manufactured by Ammco. At trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the sole defendant remaining at trial, Hennessy Industries, Inc. (Ammco), in the amount of $25 million, consisting of $10 million for past pain and suffering and $15 million for future pain and suffering. A summary of that verdict can …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Overturned on Statute of Limitation Argument as No Proof Offered Linking Past Disease With Mesothelioma Diagnosis
In this take-home exposure case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant epithelial mesothelioma (MEM) on or about August 5, 2010 and commenced her case against various defendants on November 5, 2012. After joinder of issue and discovery, several defendants moved for, and were granted, summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2). Under this statute, “the three year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury . . . caused by the latent effects of exposure …
Continue ReadingRegardless of Whether New York or Maritime Law Applied, Government Contractor and Bare Metal Defenses Insufficient to Grant Summary Judgment to Foster Wheeler
The plaintiff alleged the decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1947-52, and while on board the USS Charles H. Roan. Defendants Foster Wheeler and General Electric removed to federal court pursuant to the federal officer statute. Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment based on: (1) the government contractor defense; (2) bare metal defense; and (3) its products were not a substantial factor in causing injury. Crane Co. also moved for summary judgment; Crane, CBS Corp., and Foster Wheeler also …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Numerous NYCAL Cases into Six Trial Groups Granted
The plaintiff moved to consolidate numerous cases into six trial groups pursuant to CPLR 602(a) on the grounds that there are common issues of law and fact. Several defendants opposed the consolidation, arguing, among other things, that they are prejudiced by joint trials, which violate their due process and equal protection rights. They also argued that the plaintiffs consistently recover more in joint trials as juries are confused in joint trials and rely on testimony in one action to bolster their determination in another action …
Continue ReadingEven Applying Relaxed Product Identification Standards of New York Law, Plaintiff Fails to Establish Exposure to Five of Six Defendants Moving for Summary Judgment
The decedent, a lifetime electrician, passed away in 2014 of lung cancer. Prior to passing, he filed a lawsuit for asbestos exposure against numerous manufacturers. Six defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing lack of exposure — Rockwell Automation (Allen-Bradley); BW/IP International (Byron Jackson); Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo); Gardner Denver; Schneider Electric (Square D); and Warren Pumps. The court granted all motions, except that of Allen-Bradley.
The decedent claimed exposure to Warren pumps while serving as a civilian employee on board the U.S.S. Constellation. …
Continue ReadingPlaintiffs’ Motion for Joint Trial Denied Since Individual Issues Between Plaintiffs Predominated Over Any Common Questions of Law and Fact
The plaintiffs, who had the same attorneys, commenced personal injuries actions in Nassau County Supreme Court, alleging personal injuries as a result of exposures to asbestos. In support of the motion, it was noted that each plaintiff was still alive and suffering from lung cancer, were exposed to the same or similar materials during a similar time frame, that common defendants existed, and that the non-parties would overlap. The defendants opposed on several grounds, including that the distinctions between the individual plaintiffs made joinder inappropriate …
Continue ReadingAlthough Plaintiff’s Claims Within 1986 Manville Settlement Order, Case Remanded to Bankruptcy Court to Determine If Plaintiff Received Due Process
The plaintiff, Salvador J. Parra, Jr., developed asbestosis after working as an insulator and sued Marsh USA, Inc., an insurance broker, and others. Marsh filed a motion in the bankruptcy cases of Johns-Manville, arguing it was relieved of liability for the plaintiff’s claims. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The district court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.
Marsh was Manville’s primary insurance broker from 1944-1982. Manville had sued Marsh, …
Continue Reading