Motion to Remand Turbine Manufacturer’s Removal Denied Due to Statements in Settlement Demand Letter United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, January 9, 2019

RHODE ISLAND — The plaintiff filed suit on behalf of her husband, Michael Mannix, alleging that his death was caused by exposure to asbestos. She sued CBS, among other defendants, related to his work on ships in the Navy. After years of discovery, the plaintiff’s counsel sent CBS a settlement demand letter in which it was stated that decedent was exposed to asbestos from CBS turbines on the USS Saratoga. CBS promptly removed the case on October 9, 2018, alleging that the statement provided a…
Continue reading...

Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Denied with Respect to Two Defendants Superior Court of Rhode Island, April 20, 2017

The plaintiff filed for voluntary dismissal in order to re-file in the State of Pennsylvania. Various defendants had filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Two defendants, Evenheat Kiln and Sargent Art, objected to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with respect to Evenheat and Sargent. The case had progressed through the discovery phase, and the plaintiff was deposed over six days. Evenheat never contested jurisdiction in Rhode Island. After discovery, both Evenheat and…
Continue reading...

Dissolved Company Failed to Meet Notice Requirements of Statute of Repose Superior Court of Rhode Island, March 13, 2017

Defendant Grover S. Wormer Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Wright-Austin Company, brought a motion to dismiss the asbestos litigation filed on behalf of Frank D’Amico in the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence.  Wormer originally brought its motion under Super. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6) and contended that the plaintiff’s claims for liability are barred under Michigan’s Business Corporation Act Chapter 8 (the BCA), which governs the dissolution of corporations and provides a Statute of Repose to bar continued liability.  The plaintiff did not contest…
Continue reading...

Rhode Island Court Applies Maine Law to Deny Summary Judgment to Insulation Contractor Superior Court of Rhode Island, March 13, 2017

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of warranty based upon asbestos exposure sustained by decedent during his work at various job sites through the Laborer’s Union from 1969-1990. Defendant New England Insulation Company (NEI) filed a motion for summary judgment based upon various theories, which the court denied. During his deposition, the decedent testified that he worked as a laborer for general contractors at job sites in Maine.  From 1973-1976 he worked at International Paper Mill around other trades, such as pipefitters and insulators. His…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Granted to Valve Manufacturer Based on Insufficient Evidence of Exposure Superior Court of Rhode Island, March 13, 2017

The plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence for personal injuries and wrongful death alleging plaintiff’s decedent use of asbestos products with defendant’s valves were foreseeable to the defendant and, under a negligence theory, the defendant failed to warn of the associated hazards. The defendant moved for summary judgment under Maine Law, to which both parties agreed upon, on November 16, 2016, and argued that the plaintiff failed to offer, and have no reasonable expectation of offering any evidence that plaintiff’s…
Continue reading...

Exception to Boiler Manufacturer’s Bare Metal Defense Found in Denial of Summary Judgment U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, March 16, 2017

James Stevens served as a boiler technician aboard the USS Allagash from July 7, 1951 until October 11, 1952. The boilers on the Allagash were manufactured by Foster Wheeler and included asbestos containing materials in their construction. Foster Wheeler additionally provided additional asbestos containing materials to be used in the boilers. Mr. Stevens was diagnosed with mesothelioma and passed away in 2015. The plaintiffs brought suit against various defendants, including Foster Wheeler, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging Mr.…
Continue reading...

Tennessee Law Applied Over Virginia Law in Case Filed in Rhode Island; Tort Factors and Interest Factors Both Supported Tennessee Law Superior Court of Rhode Island, January 18, 2017

The plaintiffs alleged both direct and secondary exposure to asbestos by Harold Murray, leading to his development of mesothelioma. Mr. Murray worked in both Tennessee and Virginia. The plaintiffs lived in Tennessee. The defendants filed a motion to apply the law of Tennessee, while the plaintiffs argued for Virginia law. The court ruled that Tennessee was the correct choice of law. The defendants argued that under Rhode Island choice-of-law principles, Tennessee law applied; the plaintiffs were domiciled in Tennessee, the plaintiff was diagnosed in Tennessee,…
Continue reading...

Affidavits Executed by Decedent Containing Product Identification Admissible Under Dying Declaration Hearsay Exception Superior Court of Rhode Island, November 2, 2016

Decedent John Pisano executed three affidavits regarding Sears products after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma; he died three months after his diagnosis and was never deposed. The affidavits detailed the decedent’s use of floor tile, ceiling tile, and mastic purchased from Sears. Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. moved for summary judgment on various bases. The plaintiff presented these three affidavits in opposition to Sears’ summary judgment motion. The court denied the motion for summary judgment. Sears argued the plaintiff could not demonstrate any causal connection…
Continue reading...

Defendants Successfully Argue to Apply More Favorable Tennessee Laws Limiting Damages in Rhode Island Asbestos Case Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, March 5, 2015

In this case, the plaintiff worked and lived in the state of Tennessee for his entire life, with the exception of one year living in Maryland while working at Bethlehem Steel. The majority of his asbestos exposure occurred in Tennessee, which is also where he was diagnosed and treated for mesothelioma. The court had previously granted the motions of various defendants to apply Tennessee law. In the instant motion, defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of four areas of the law where that…
Continue reading...