Product Manufacturer and Supplier’s Motion to Dismiss Granted for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, February 18, 2022

In this asbestos action, defendant Ametek, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint by plaintiffs Maria and Carmelo Patti. The plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Patti was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured and supplied by Ametek to her employer, Grieco Brothers, which caused her to develop mesothelioma.

The court undertook a two-part inquiry as is required under Connecticut law when a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, …

Continue Reading

Lube Oil Purifier Manufacturer Successful on Motion to Dismiss Based on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; April 11, 2022

The plaintiffs, George Lishman and Vicki Lishman filed a complaint on January 26, 2021 against Alfa Laval Inc., (“defendant” or “Alfa Laval”) in addition to other defendants, alleging that Mr. Lishman developed mesothelioma resulting from exposure to the defendants’ asbestos-containing products. Mr. Lishman was a life-long Illinois resident. Alfa Laval is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Virginia, and serves as successor-in-interest to the Sharples …

Continue Reading

Court Grants Chemical Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction Grounds

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, April 5, 2022

In this asbestos action, plaintiff John R. Andres passed away in April 2020, allegedly as a result of his diagnosis with mesothelioma. His son subsequently filed suit in Florida against 51 defendants, alleging that his father came into contact with numerous asbestos-containing products over the course of his life. One of the defendants, Huntsman Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that theywere not subject topersonal jurisdiction in Florida. While the plaintiff’s …

Continue Reading

Recovery of Damages Permitted as to Adult Children, Disallowed as to Spouse in Wrongful Death Action

Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, March 30, 2022

In this matter, the decedent alleged exposure to asbestos during military service, throughout his career working at various industrial plants, and at his own home from the 1950s to the 1990s. On May 22, 2015, the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On July 4, 2015, he married the woman (the spouse) with whom he had lived for many years. On July 23, 2015, the decedent sued multiple defendants, asserting claims for negligence and strict liability. …

Continue Reading

Brake Machine Defendant Summary Judgment Decision Reversed on Appeal

Superior Court of Delaware, March 28, 2022

In this asbestos action, plaintiff Shelley Droz alleged that her husband, Eric Droz, was diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while using an arc grinding machine to resurface brake shoes. She alleged that Hennessy’s predecessor-in-interest manufactured the arc grinding machine, and further alleged that Hennessy knew that the grinding process generated asbestos-containing dust, and had a duty under Washington State law to warn Mr. Droz about the potential dangers of exposure to asbestos …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Affirmed and Reversed for Three Premises Defendants Relating to Several Duty Issues

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division, March 10, 2022

In this asbestos action, plaintiff Kevin Sinyard developed malignant pleural mesothelioma following a 25-plus year career as a pipefitter. Sinyard commenced an asbestos-related action against several defendants. Three of the defendants include premises defendants (Georgia Power, Ford Motor Company, and Piedmont Hospital), where Sinyard worked from 1975 until 1989. The trial court granted summary judgment to all three defendants. Following the plaintiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the …

Continue Reading

Jury Verdict Overturned: “Mere Possibility” of Exposure to a Product Insufficient to Meet Plaintiff’s Burden

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One, November 30, 2021

The plaintiff, Amos Webb, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2018, and filed suit againstnumerous defendants, including General Cable Corporation, alleging that he was exposed to asbestos while working as an electrician for various employers throughout his career. Specifically, during his discovery deposition, Mr. Webb testified that he worked “quite frequently” with a product known as “Romex wire.” Romex was a popular brand of cable used for interior wiring, and General Cable acquired …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Expert Opinions on Causation, Historical Literature, and “Cumulative Exposure Theory” Precluded

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, November 23, 2021

The plaintiff alleged that her late husband, Bruce Johnson, was exposed to asbestos between 1971 and 1984 while working with ceramics for different companies and schools. Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017 and died in 2020. The plaintiff filed suit against Vanderbilt, inter alia, alleging that Vanderbilt was liable under a negligent products liability theory for manufacturing, distributing, or selling asbestos-containing products used in the production of ceramics. …

Continue Reading

Court Finds Plaintiff’s Affidavit Establishes Specific Jurisdiction

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, September 9, 2021

Plaintiff Dennis A. Rockwell filed an asbestos action alleging he was exposed to asbestos from his work on two U.S. Navy ships and during his employment at Camp Pendleton, located in California.He alleged that such asbestos exposure ultimately resulted in his February 2021 diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Defendant Akron Brass Company moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction citing the plaintiff’s failure to provide facts connecting Akron Bass to California. …

Continue Reading

$4.4 Million Verdict Affirmed in Asbestos Bowling Ball Trial

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8

The decedent, Donald Vanni, and his brother co-owned and operated Arcata Bowl bowling alley in California from 1957 to 1986. During this time, one of the decedent’s duties was to drill custom-fit finger holes in asbestos-containing bowling balls sold by Arcata Bowl. A press release issued by the Vanni family’s legal team stated, in part: “Asbestos, used as a filler in plastic Ebonite bowling balls, was supplied by Honeywell [International Inc.] in the form of discarded brake …

Continue Reading