Electric Motor Defendants Obtain Summary Judgment as Plaintiff Failed to Proffer Sufficient Causation Evidence

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, May 14, 2021

In this asbestos action, the plaintiff alleges that the decedent Richard Nybeck developed lung cancer following occupational exposure to asbestos. Pertinent to the motions for summary judgment, the decedent alleged that he worked with Allen-Bradley electrical motors and starters which were mounted to asbestos-containing phenolic board at the Philadelphia International Airport. In addition, he dismantled A.O. Smith electric motors which contained asbestos-containing phenolic board at the Philadelphia Technical Institute. Both defendants argued that …

Continue Reading

Pump Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment on Causation Grounds

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, April 28, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Carl E. Gay, was exposed to asbestos while serving in the United States Navy and the United States Air Force from 1946 to 1958 and 1958 to 1967, respectively; and while employed by General Electric Co. from 1967 to 1974 and Stone and Webster from 1974 to 1989; and from performing Shadetree automotive work beginning in the 1940s. Mr. Gay was deposed over the course of nine …

Continue Reading

Steam Equipment Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment on Product Identification Grounds

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, April 28, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Carl E. Gay, was exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force from 1946 to 1958 and 1958 to 1967, respectively; and while employed by General Electric Co. from 1967 to 1974 and Stone and Webster from 1974 to 1989; and from performing Shadetree automotive work beginning in the 1940s. Mr. Gay was deposed over the course of nine days and …

Continue Reading

Court Recommends Denial of Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Finding Court had Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, February 11, 2021

The decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos dust and fibers during his employment with the U.S. Navy and other various employers. He developed mesothelioma in 2018 and died from complications in February 2020. The decedent’s wife brings this lawsuit against various defendants alleging that they engaged in the mining, milling, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, selling and/or using and/or recommending and/or installing and/or removing asbestos materials and other dangerous ingredients and products which caused decedent …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs Successfully Disclaim Naval Exposure, Divesting Federal Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, October 1, 2020

Plaintiffs David Martincic and Merl Williams alleged that Mr. Martincic was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos brought home on the clothing, body, and person of several family members who worked at American Cyanamid in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania from 1946 through the 1970s. The plaintiffs filed suit against 173 defendants, including Foster Wheeler, LLC in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In June 2020, Foster Wheeler …

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania District Court Denies Summary Judgment to Defendant Under Colorado Law

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs alleged that Harald H. Mehnert developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing laboratory equipment while working as a lab technician at the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado from 1959 to 1995. Plaintiffs sued numerous defendants, including Fisher Scientific Company, LLC (“Fisher”), and Mr. Mehnert generally alleged that he used asbestos-containing paper tape, cloth, clamps with asbestos sleeves, gloves, and boards that he ordered from both Fisher and a company called …

Continue Reading

Under the Fair Share Act: Pennsylvania Asbestos Liability Share will be Allocated Per Capita

Supreme Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 19, 2020

The Trial Court

PENNSYLVANIA – The plaintiffs, William Roverano and Jacqueline Roverano, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on March 10, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The plaintiffs alleged that William Roverano contracted lung cancer as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products during his employment as a helper and a carpenter at PECO Energy Company from 1971 to 1981. On Jan. 7, 2016, the defendant, John Crane, Inc. filed a third-party complaint joining …

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania Personal Jurisdiction Update

The past three years have seen the scope of personal jurisdiction challenges expand on a national level, and Pennsylvania is no exception. Two areas in particular in Pennsylvania, jurisdiction by consent and jurisdiction by registration, have been tackled by both the state and federal courts in the Commonwealth. There have been inconsistent rulings in the courts, and there is potential for a continued sea change in this particular area of jurisprudence based on the outcome of a currently pending appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court.…

Continue Reading

Defendants Win Locomotive Inspection Act Preemption Argument on Summary Judgment Motion in Pennsylvania

PENNSYLVANIA – A personal injury lawsuit was filed in the court of common pleas of Philadelphia County in April 2016 on behalf of the decedent, Diane Shields. Thereafter, it was removed to federal court. The complaint alleged common law causes of action for negligence, wrongful death and survivorship claims due to the decedent’s exposure to asbestos through her employment at the Motor Coils Manufacturing Company in Braddock, PA.

The decedent worked as a laborer at Motor Coils where she cleaned pinion gears as part of …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amend Complaint Against Auto Manufacturer Denied

PENNSYLVANIA – The plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, after the court granted Ford and AT&T’s motions to dismiss. Ford argued that the motion should be denied because there was no new exposure information. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to adhere to longstanding Third Circuit rule that a motion to amend must contain a draft of the amended complaint so that the court can determine if the amendment is futile. Since the plaintiff failed …

Continue Reading