Automotive Defendant Obtains Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, July 21, 2022

In this asbestos action, defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to respond to Honeywell’s motion.

A district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). An Illinois district …

Continue Reading

Brake Supplier Permitted to Present Evidence of Fault Against Non-Parties for Apportionment Considerations

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, July 12, 2022

In this asbestos action, the plaintiff Jack Papineau sued various manufacturers alleging that these manufacturers produced asbestos-containing products, which caused plaintiff’s mesothelioma. One of the defendants, Brake Supply, sought indemnification or apportionment from an outside party, Frans-Le South America (“Fras-Le”), alleging that Frans-Le sold Brake Supply asbestos-containing brakes. The court dismissed Brake Supply’s indemnification claims against Frans-Le for a lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the court left the question of …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

Defendants Successful on Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Expert’s Specific Causation Opinion 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, July 11, 2022

Plaintiff, Frank Shelton, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit alleging his exposure to asbestos from various defendants’ products while he served in the Navy from approximately the mid-1960s to the early 1970s caused him to contract mesothelioma. During his service, plaintiff worked as a machinist mate while stationed aboard the USS Constellation, USS Repose, and USS Haleakala, where he regularly and routinely performed maintenance and repairs to various equipment in the …

Continue Reading

Alameda County Awaits Key Decision Regarding The Use of Genetic Testing in Asbestos Cases

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee set a hearing on nationally recognized plaintiff’s firm Maune Raichle French Hartley & Mudd. LLC’s motion for protective order in a pending asbestos case in which the defendants’ experts wanted to perform genetic testing. The case is John Lohmann and Suzanne Lohmann v. Aaon, Inc., et al. Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG21098862. In this case, the plaintiffs filed their action in May 2021 in Alameda County against several defendants alleging that Mr. Lohmann contracted mesothelioma …

Continue Reading

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