Defendants, 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

Several Defendants Not Named in Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Answers Move for Summary Judgment With Various Results

In this case, the plaintiff, Mark Denison, claimed exposure to asbestos from numerous products while working at his father’s hardware store from 1964-65 to 1969, Dunkirk Radiator from 1972 to 1987, and from his own automotive repair business from 1980 to the early 1990s.  Defendants Bird, Inc., Euclid-Hitachi Heavy Equipment, Inc., F.E. Myers, Oshkosh Corporation, and WT/HRC Corporation all moved for summary judgment.

In its ruling, the court highlighted that none of the moving defendants were identified in the plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories. The court …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Awarded to Pump Manufacturer for Alleged Exposure to Pump Component Parts Manufactured by Third-Parties

In Holzworth v. Alfa Laval, et al. 12-CV-06088 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016), Southern District of New York Judge John Keenan granted defendant Ingersoll-Rand’s summary judgment motion arising out of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos aboard the U.S.S. Sheldrake. The plaintiff’s decedent had testified that he was exposed to pumps aboard the ship as a bystander and by cleaning them. He did not specifically describe their pumps’ composition, but claimed that he scraped asbestos-containing packing from the jackets. He further testified that many of the …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Court Permits Discovery of Non-Party Co-Author of Article Analyzing Verdicts in Association with Consolidated Trials

In this NYCAL case, Justice Peter Moulton denied the defendants’ motion seeking to quash a subpoena served by Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. upon Mr. Marc Scarcella of Bates, White LLC, an economic consulting firm. Mr. Scarcella co-authored an article entitled, “The Consolidation Effect:  New York City Asbestos Verdicts, Due Process and Judicial Economy.” In summary, the article analyzed verdicts in association with consolidated trials in NYCAL.

In denying the motion to quash, the court began its opinion by noting that the Defendants “concede[d] that [the …

Continue Reading

Prior Release Found Inadequate to Dismiss Future Jones Act/FELA Claims Based on Development of Mesothelioma

In this NYCAL case, the Maritime Asbestos Legal Clinic originally filed a suit in 1997 on behalf of the decedent, Mason South, in the Northern District of Ohio. The decedent served in the Merchant Marines from 1945 to 1982. Less than two months later the case settled, with Texaco Inc. being one of the settled defendants. In 2014, the decedent was diagnosed with and died from complications related to mesothelioma. In 2015, the decedent’s wife commenced another action under the Jones Act arising from her …

Continue Reading

Previously Dismissed Federal Maritime Case Against Ship Owners on Personal Jurisdiction Grounds Subsequently Dismissed in NYCAL; Court Finds There Was No Tolling of Statute of Limitations

In this NYCAL decision, it was alleged that the decedent, Eugene Quinlan, was exposed to asbestos and developed lung cancer from his work as a career merchant mariner. The case was originally filed in 1997 in the Northern District of Ohio for a non-malignant asbestos disease. The decedent subsequently developed lung cancer and the case was assigned to the MultiDistrict Litigation (MDL), which included the Maritime Docket cases (MARDOC), and laid dormant for seventeen years. In 2014, the case was assigned to the Eastern District …

Continue Reading

Decedent’s Incomplete Testimony Found Sufficient to Overcome Summary Judgment as Pump Manufacturer Should Have Re-noticed His Deposition to Question Him Prior to His Death

In this NYCAL case, it is alleged that the decedent, Warren Taveniere, was exposed to asbestos while working aboard several vessels as a Merchant Marine for Moore McCormack Lines from 1953 to 1955. The plaintiff’s interrogatory responses included Aurora Pump Company and at his deposition, the decedent testified that he used asbestos-containing gaskets and packing on Aurora pumps. After four hours the deposition was adjourned due to the decedent’s failing health and Aurora’s counsel had not yet had the opportunity to question him. The decedent’s …

Continue Reading

New York Federal Court Grants Auto Repair Parts Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case to Florida Federal Court

In this federal case, the plaintiff brought an action against defendants BASF Catalysts LLC, Superior Materials, Inc. and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. for the asbestos exposure and death of her husband, Pedro Rosado-Rivera. The plaintiff alleges that each defendant sold an asbestos-containing auto body repair filler that the decedent worked with at auto shops in New York, Puerto Rico, and Florida.  The defendants moved to transfer the case to The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The court granted the …

Continue Reading

Post-Trial Motion for Additur Granted, Increasing Mesothelioma Pain and Suffering Damages

The plaintiff’s decedent, Richard Voelker, was diagnosed with and died from mesothelioma. A personal injury action was pursued and resulted in a verdict awarding the Estate various damages, including a pain and suffering award of $250,000. The plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for additur arguing that the jury’s award for pain and suffering was inadequate compensation for Mr. Voelker’s “extraordinarily horrific” suffering. The court granted the motion, increasing the pain and suffering award to $600,000.

The court cited to the plaintiff’s video trial testimony and …

Continue Reading

New York Court Addresses Jurisdiction, Product Identification, and Duty to Warn Issues in Denying Valve Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment

The plaintiff developed mesothelioma and asserted asbestos exposure to valves from Fisher Controls International LLC through his work in various states, including New York.  Fisher moved for summary judgment and dismissal of various counts if its summary judgment was denied. The court denied the summary judgment, but granted dismissal of certain counts because these were unopposed.

First, Fisher argued that the New York court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction, because it only learned of the plaintiff’s nine-month occupational history in New York when plaintiff …

Continue Reading