NEW YORK — In a currently pending asbestos matter, defendant Jenkins Bros. issued trial subpoenas to three settling defendants – Crane Co., Flowserve, Inc., and Warren Pumps. These three defendants filed motions to quash the subpoenas, which the court denied. The court ruled that the trial subpoenas were served properly on counsel in a timely manner, as no orders or stipulations of discontinuance had been filed by the three parties, and that the information sought in the subpoenas was relevant to establish apportionment of liability …
Continue ReadingCategory: Other Asbestos News
Defense Strategies For Alternative Causation
Goldberg Segalla asbestos team members, Tom Bernier, Oded Burger, Joseph Cagnoli Jr., and Susan Van Gelder have recently published a practical guide for defense attorneys raising alternative causation defenses in Mealey’s Asbestos Litigation Report. (See article link below.) In the paper, the authors reviewed recent scientific advances to provide the defense practitioner the tools to challenge the plaintiffs’ experts’ one-size-fits-all causation model.
One of the most significant recent developments in asbestos litigation has come from the field of genomics. Since 2011, over …
Continue ReadingBankruptcy Court Vigilant of Attempts to Divert Insurance Proceeds to Legal Fees
WASHINGTON — On appeal from bankruptcy court, a federal district court denied Travelers’ motion to convert a debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization into a Chapter 7 liquidation. In Travelers Indemnity Company v. Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc. BHS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2018), the debtor, Fraser Boiler Service, Inc., was a former boiler repair company that operated for decades installing and maintaining equipment. Fraser permanently ceased all operations and sold all of its business assets, leaving behind only insurance policies to pay the claims of asbestos …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Jury Returns Defense Verdict for Brake Arc Grinder Manufacturer
CALIFORNIA — on August 8, 2018, an Alameda County jury issued a defense verdict for Hennessey Industries, Inc. (AMMCO) in the plaintiff Donald Knutson’s mesothelioma case, which included allegations of exposures to asbestos from time in the United States Navy and from time working with various friction products. While the jury found that Plaintiff’s mesothelioma was related to asbestos, and that he worked around an AMMCO brake arc grinder, they declined to find that AMMCO was negligent, or that they knew or should have known …
Continue ReadingTalc Defendant Entitled to Costs after Favorable Verdict
CALIFORNIA — In 2016, a Los Angeles jury ruled in favor of defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company (Colgate), and against Plaintiff Elizabeth Alfaro, who alleged that her mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from talcum powder products. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Colgate on the exposure claims; this verdict was affirmed on appeal. Colgate then appealed the trial court’s denial of its request for $300,000 in costs and expert witness fees. This request was made pursuant to the California statutory law scheme which …
Continue ReadingPA Supreme Court to Determine Whether Fair Share Act Applies to Asbestos Cases
On July 31, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted William Roverano’s petition for allowance of appeal from the Superior Court’s December 2017 ruling that the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act applied to asbestos strict liability claims. Specifically, the court accepted review of two issues:
1) Whether, under this issue of first impression, the Superior Court misinterpreted the Fair Share Act 42 Pa.C.S. 7102 in holding that the Act requires the jury to apportion liability on a percentage basis as opposed to a per capita basis in …
Continue ReadingLack of Personal Jurisdiction over Successor-in-Interest Defendant Leads to Dismissal in Environmental Contamination Case
NEW YORK — The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging damages for environmental contamination within the City of Rochester. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the successors in interest to the defendants caused contamination to their property throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s. Defendant Valero Corporation (Valero) moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion finding that the plaintiffs had established facts that demonstrated justification to “exercise” personal jurisdiction over Valero because “it was …
Continue Reading
Presence of Related Corporate Entities at Deposition Insufficient to Overcome Requirements of Notice and Opportunity to Cross-Examine
The decedent Jo Ann Shields worked for a carpet and tile store for six years in the 1970s, and alleged that exposure to vinyl asbestos tile caused her fatal mesothelioma. Among other exposures, she alleged that she was exposed to asbestos floor tile manufactured by National Floor Products Company, a now defunct entity that was a subsidiary of a French corporation called Tarkett, S.A. Prior to her passing, she gave de bene esse and discovery depositions, at which defendants Tarkett, Inc. and Domco Products Texas, …
Continue ReadingLack of Personal Jurisdiction over Talc Defendant Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment in Part
FLORIDA — The plaintiff Susan Stevenson maintained suit against several defendants including Imerys Tac America Inc. (Imerys) alleging that her decedent, Judith Minneci, had developed peritoneal mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos contaminated talc and talcum powder. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff used Johnson and Johnson baby powder from 1942-1985.
Imerys moved for summary judgment arguing that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The plaintiff responded that two contacts between Florida and the defendant established jurisdiction. First, its predecessor was …
Continue ReadingAdmission into Evidence of Testimony and Answers to Discovery of Settled Defendants Leads to New Trial Ordered on Issue of Apportionment
NEW JERSEY — Donna Rowe (plaintiff), individually and as executrix and executrix ad prosequendum of the estate of Ronald Rowe (Rowe), appealed an April 27, 2015 judgment of $304,152.70 plus prejudgment interest. The plaintiffs originally sued 27 defendants, alleging that exposure to asbestos from their products caused Rowe’s mesothelioma. Twelve defendants were granted summary judgment, four were dismissed, and two never appeared and the claims against them were abandoned. Additionally, eight parties settled their claims before trial, leaving only Hilco, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Universal …
Continue Reading