In this NYCAL case, it was alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from work he and others in his vicinity performed with Johns Manville (JM) transite pipe. The plaintiff moved for a spoliation charge, alleging that in 1990 JM was grossly negligent in the disappearance of more than 10 banker boxes of business records when transferring headquarters and in 1997 intentionally destroyed another 27 boxes of business records. The documents destroyed in 1997 were done so by James Richert, a former JM employee …
Continue ReadingCategory: New York
Boiler Manufacturer Ordered to Disclose All Documents Referencing Asbestos or Asbestos-Containing Materials
In this NYCAL case, a June 23, 2014 order denied defendant Cleaver-Brooks’ motion to vacate a November 9, 2013 order of the Special Master directing the production of “all its commercial files, all other relevant documents and records, and its index card database.” The order also denied Cleaver-Brook’s application for a confidentiality order and cost sharing.
In a unanimous decision, the appellate court modified the order holding that Cleaver-Brooks had to produce all documents that reference asbestos or asbestos-containing products, parts or components used for …
Continue ReadingBoiler Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Contradictory Testimony on Product ID
In this NYCAL case, the plaintiff, Mark Ricci, claims secondhand exposure to asbestos from his father’s work with boilers, including boilers manufactured by defendant Cleaver-Brooks. During the testimony of the plaintiff’s father, Aldo Ricci’s, he originally answered that he did not recall observing anyone working on a Cleaver-Brooks boiler. Later, during plaintiff’s counsel’s questioning, Aldo did identify Cleaver-Brooks. Based on the contradictory testimony, Cleaver-Brooks moved for summary judgment, arguing that Aldo’s identification of their product was prompted by the plaintiff’s counsel and should be disregarded. …
Continue ReadingPlaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Delete Federal Question Neither Prejudicial Nor Futile Where Remaining Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion Did Not Argue Federal Claims
The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma and filed suit against a sea of defendants in New York state court. After responding to interrogatories indicating that he was exposed to asbestos while in the Navy, Foster Wheeler timely removed this case to federal court based upon the federal government-contractor defense. When the only defendant remaining was Crane, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a first amended complaint which would eliminate any federal claims or defenses. At the time the paintiff moved for leave to amend, …
Continue ReadingAfter Supplier Defaulted Through Nonappearance, Court Awarded Damages In Unopposed Proceeding
An Erie County, New York court has issued a decision on damages in a default action where damages and liability were uncontested following a two-day bench trial in an asbestos case involving Joseph Muir, a 58-year-old man living with mesothelioma. Defendant Hedman Resources, Ltd. was the only remaining defendant. Hedman had been served with the summons and complaint pursuant to alternative service granted by the court two years earlier. Hedman never appeared in the action and was in default at the time of the trial. …
Continue ReadingValve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment on Bare Metal Defense
In this NYCAL case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, Mark Ricci, was exposed secondhand to asbestos from his father’s air conditioning and ventilation work. Aldo Ricci (Aldo), Mark Ricci’s father, testified that he was exposed to asbestos from working near others working on Crane Co. valves. Crane moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove he was exposed to asbestos from any asbestos-containing product manufactured or supplied by Crane. It was Crane’s position that it should be entitled to summary judgment …
Continue ReadingMotion to Consolidate Trials Granted
The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate separate actions into three separate groups for joint trial. The court noted that as to the three groups, all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm, are in the same phase of discovery, and the plaintiffs allege the same type of cancer. The court granted the motion, finding “…that the trials in each of the groups involve common questions of law and fact and that consolidation of these cases into the three groups will not …
Continue ReadingClutch Manufacturer Makes Prima Facie Showing of Entitlement to Summary Judgment
In this New York case out of Nassau County, the plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure to various products while working as a truck mechanic from the late 1950s to the mid 1990s. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he removed and installed Eaton clutches on trucks from 1961 to 1970. Eaton moved for summary judgment and attached the affidavit of Roger Hobbie, who was employed in various capacities at Eaton from 1959 to 1997. In his affidavit, Mr. Hobbie stated that between 1959 until the …
Continue ReadingDefendants Fail to Make Prima Facie Entitlement to Summary Judgment Since They Failed to Show Their Products Could Not Have Contributed to Decedent’s illness or Death
In this case, the decedent alleged exposure to asbestos while working at Republic Steel from the early 1960s through the early 1970s. It is claimed he was exposed to insulation materials that were removed and installed in his vicinity while he was a laborer and to materials used to make “hot tops” while a crane operator. Defendants Insulation Distributors, Inc. (IDI), Beazer East, and Ferro Corporation all moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove that the decedent, who died prior to …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Court Rules a Plumber Dismantling a Sectional Boiler Was a Foreseeable User of That Product
In this NYCAL mesothelioma case, the plaintiff worked as a plumber from 1984-1996, disassembling plumbing equipment including Cleaver Brooks cast iron sectional boilers. Cleaver Brooks initially moved for summary judgment on the grounds that a plumber such as the plaintiff was not a foreseeable user of the product, which the lower court denied. The Appellate Division then issued a decision in Hockler v William Powell Co., 129 AD3d 463 (1st Dept. 2015), holding that a salvaging and dismantling valve was not a foreseeable use of …
Continue Reading