Trial Postponed In Mesothelioma Case To Allow Discovery on Premises and Employer Liability Claims

LOUISIANA — The plaintiff Victor Michel alleged that he developed peritoneal mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos in his work as a mechanic performing work on engines and brakes. Ford Motor Company is the only remaining defendant in this matter. The court ruled on motions by the plaintiff and Ford, and ultimately continued the trial. After learning that Ford may have owned the dealership at which the plaintiff worked, the plaintiff moved the court to amend their complaint to add premises claims, employer liability claims, and …

Continue Reading
Judge gavel with lawyer and attorney meeting in law firm background. Concepts of law, legal advice,legal services.

Personal Jurisdiction Motion By Telecom Employer and Auto Company Denied; Case Dismissed Due to Pleading Deficiencies

PENNSYLVANIA — Yesterday, a federal judge disagreed with the defendants, Ford Motor Company and AT&T, that the court lacked jurisdiction over the companies, but determined that the plaintiff Rhonda J. Gorton’s pleadings were deficient nonetheless. Ms. Gorton sued Ford, AT&T, and several other parties alleging that they exposed her late husband Thomas Gorton to asbestos, causing his mesothelioma. The court found that Gorton’s amended complaint set forth only conclusory allegations against Ford, and lacked any facts that demonstrated potential liability. They further determined that the …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Denied Due to Fraudulent Joinder of Talc Defendant

MISSOURI — The plaintiff Shawnee D. Douglas originally filed suit against multiple entities, contending that her use of talc product caused her malignant mesothelioma. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) removed the case to federal court on the grounds that diversity of citizenship exists because, inter alia, the only Missouri-based defendant, PTI Union, was “fraudulently joined.”

Numerous motions were filed by the parties, including: Imerys Talc America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff’s Petition for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Remand with …

Continue Reading

Imerys Talc America, Inc., Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada Inc. Seek Bankruptcy Protection

DELWARE — Yesterday, Imerys Talc America, Inc., Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada Inc. filed a petition to seek bankruptcy protection under U.S. Chapter 11. In support of their petition, the Imerys entities referenced “significant potential liabilities as a result of thousands of claims by plaintiffs alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to talc mined, processed, and/or distributed by one or more of the Debtors” as a factor leading to the filing. According to the petition, the entities face 13,800 pending ovarian cancer …

Continue Reading

$14 Million Verdict Upheld Against Chemical Plant Defendant

SOUTH CAROLINA — A $14 million verdict against Celanese Corporation was upheld on appeal in the mesothelioma case of 70 year old deceased the plaintiff Dennis Seay.  Seay did maintenance and repair work in a Celanese plant as a contractor for Daniel Construction for nine years in the 1970s. In 2015, a South Carolina jury found that Celanese was negligent in running the plant and awarded Seay $12 million dollars in compensatory damages and $2 million dollars in punitive damages.

The appellate court disagreed with …

Continue Reading

Assertion of Innocent Seller Defense Leads to Dismissal of Auto Supplier in Mesothelioma Matter

MISSISSIPPI — The plaintiff filed suit against A-1 Auto Parts and Repair (A-1) alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from his work as a mechanic and exposure to talcum powder. A-1 moved for dismissal under Federal Rule 12 (b) 6 arguing that it was an “innocent seller” under Mississippi Products Liability Law (MPLA). The plaintiff did not respond or oppose the motion. The MPLA states that a seller shall not be liable for claims unless the “seller or designer exercised …

Continue Reading

Honeywell Settles Mesothelioma Case Before Jury Verdict

ARKANSAS — An Arkansas jury awarded plaintiff Ronald Thomas $18.5 million after a three week trial against Honeywell International, successor-in-interest to Bendix. However, prior to the verdict Honeywell and the plaintiff agreed to settle claims for an undisclosed amount. The plaintiff alleged that he developed mesothelioma in part due to his work at a brake shop in Little Rock from 1971-83, where he sometimes performed up to a dozen brake changes daily.  The jury assigned 18.75 percent of fault to Honeywell, 5 percent to Thomas, …

Continue Reading

Trial Preference Granted on Appeal for Kidney Cancer Plaintiff

CALIFORNIA — A three judge appellate panel in California issued a writ of mandate requiring the trial court to vacate its prior order, and to grant oetitioner/olaintiff David Ellis’ motion for trial preference. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered from asbestos-related kidney cancer and pleural disease, and filed suit against numerous defendants in 2016. After having his case set for trial and then continued on four occasions due to lack of courtrooms, the plaintiff moved for trial preference under California Code of Civil Procedure section …

Continue Reading

Jury Awards $5.1 Million to Widow After Finding Valve Company Breached its Implied Warranty

A jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict against valve defendant Fisher Controls International LLC (Fisher) on January 24. The plaintiffs filed suit against Fisher and other defendants alleging that Thomas Glenn developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working as a pipe fitter for Duke Power. Mr. Glenn’s work involved the use of asbestos containing gaskets used in valves and pumps. Mr. Glenn also worked in the vicinity of others working on Fisher valves. He passed away in February of 2015 and …

Continue Reading

New Jersey Supreme Court Agrees to Review Duty to Warn Ruling

NEW JERSEY — In Arthur G. Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. et al, various defendants convinced the New Jersey Supreme Court to review a ruling that manufacturers may be held liable for failure to warn about the risks of asbestos-containing components or replacement parts in their products even if they did not build or distribute the parts.

The question before the Supreme Court in the matter is, “In a products liability case arising out of exposure to asbestos, does a manufacturer have a duty to …

Continue Reading