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 ReadingCategory: New York
Summary 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 ReadingNYCAL Judge Denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Product Identification and Other Grounds
In a February 22, 2016 decision, the Honorable Peter H. Moulton, J.S.C. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff-decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos during a lengthy career as a longshoreman on at certain New York City piers. During the pertinent period, the moving defendant was alleged to be the manufacturer of two asbestos-containing products (i.e., a pelletized product and a phenolic molding compound). The plaintiff …
Continue ReadingAirplane Manufacturer Granted Dismissal in N.Y. Federal Court Action for Lack of Jurisdiction Even Though Registered to do Business and Appointed an Agent for Service of Process
In this federal court case, it was alleged that the decedent, Walter Brown, was exposed to asbestos while serving as an airplane mechanic in the U.S. Air force from 1950-1970. During that time, he worked at various bases in Europe and in the U.S. in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, and Michigan. Prior to his passing, the decedent, who was living in Alabama, sued 14 companies, including Lockheed Martin Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. A motion …
Continue ReadingDefendants, Miners and Suppliers of Talc, Granted Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim of Market Share Liability as Manufacturer of the Product was Identifiable
In this case, it is alleged that the plaintiff, Keri Logiudice, contracted mesothelioma from her use of Cashmere Bouquet cosmetic talcum powder. The defendants, Cyprus Amax Minerals and Imerys Talc America Inc., mined and supplied talc to Colgate, the manufacturer of Cashmere Bouquet, and moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for market share liability.
In its decision, the court explained: “In a products liability action, identification of the exact defendant whose product injured the plaintiff is generally required (see Hymowitz v Eli …
Continue Reading