Control Manufacturer’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Psychiatrist Denied After Daubert Hearing

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division

In the present action, defendant Johnson Controls, filed a motion to exclude a psychiatrist’s opinions about three plaintiffs’ mental health. By way of background, the plaintiffs retained Dr. Zachary Torry to evaluate whether those three plaintiffs suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of being exposed to asbestos and chlorinated chemicals and, if so, whether a reasonable person under similar circumstances would experience a psychiatric injury. To form his opinions, Dr. Torry met …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re-Affirmed as to Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division

Defendants Pneumo Abex, LLC and Genuine Parts Company appeal the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment to Sheila Long, individually and as personal representative of her late husband’s estate. Long alleged that her husband Ron died from lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos contained in certain products. Long sought summary judgment on affirmative defenses that she anticipated the appellants might pursue. Now, the appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to …

Continue Reading

Manufacturer and Distributer of Raw Asbestos Wins Summary Judgment under Sophisticated User Defense

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, September 28, 2020

Plaintiffs Deforest Gibbs and Sherryl L. Gibb asserted claims against multiple defendants, including Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), alleging Mr. Gibbs suffers from mesothelioma as a result of occupational asbestos exposure. Mr. Gibbs worked as a laborer, plumber, and shade tree mechanic for 50 years in South Carolina. He allegedly suffered exposure to asbestos by working with HVAC equipment, hot water heaters, electrical products, valves, drywall, sheetrock, joint compound, caulk, roofing materials, and flooring products.

From 1963 to 1985, UCC manufactured …

Continue Reading

Pump Manufacturers’ Motions for Summary Judgment Denied in Navy Exposure Case

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, September 23, 2020

On July 26, 2018, John Pruitt (the plaintiff) sued multiple defendants asserting claims arising from his alleged exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials during his service as a machinist mate in the United States Navy and as a parts purchaser at Schroer Implement Co. He was deposed in August 2018. In addition to the plaintiff’s testimony, a fact witness, Edmond Dumas, provided testimony …

Continue Reading

Farm Equipment Dealer Wins Motion for Summary Judgment

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, July 29, 2020

Plaintiff John Pruitt filed this asbestos lawsuit alleging he contracted mesothelioma from occupational exposure to asbestos. The plaintiff served in the Navy from September 1959 to April 1962. Upon his discharge from the Navy, he worked at Schroer, a John Deere farm equipment dealership in Valdosta, Georgia, from 1963 to 1974. He initially worked as a runner, delivering and picking up parts such as brakes, clutches, and paint decals. In 1966, he started working …

Continue Reading

Cooling Tower Defendant Granted Summary Judgment Due to Lack of Product ID

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

In the instant complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Ronald Viale used, handled, or was otherwise exposed to asbestos and asbestos containing products provided by or manufactured by the defendants, that he contracted the terminal cancer, mesothelioma as a result of such exposure, and that, in July 2018, he died. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs, who are, respectively, the decedent’s wife and daughter, asserted against defendant SPX the following four Causes of Action: “Negligence,” “Strict Liability,” “False Representation,” …

Continue Reading

Delaware Superior Court: Decedent’s Exposure Affidavit Admissible

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle, July 1, 2020

A Delaware lower court has determined that an affidavit signed by a deceased plaintiff is admissible under that state’s “residual exception” to hearsay rules. Specifically, in Ogg, the plaintiff signed an affidavit regarding his work history prior to being hospitalized for end stage pulmonary fibrosis. After being discharged from the hospital, and about two weeks prior to his deposition, the plaintiff signed a second affidavit. The plaintiff passed away two days prior to a scheduled deposition. …

Continue Reading

Court Reverses Grant of New Trial, Affirms Defense Verdict for Electrical Product Manufacturer

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, June 29, 2020

In Estes v. Eaton Corp., 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 594, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District reversed an order granting a new trial, and affirmed a defense verdict for Eaton Corporation. In this case, the jury heard the trial court case, and returned a defense verdict. However, the trial court granted the plaintiff a new trial on the ground of insufficient evidence. Eaton appealed the new trial order on multiple …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Reversed in Drywall/Joint Compound Matter

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, June 24, 2020

In December 2011, the plaintiff, Jovana Collantes, and the decedent, Joel Hernandezcueva, filed a lawsuit against numerous defendants arising from the decedent’s alleged exposure to asbestos while employed as a janitor at a large complex occupied by Fluor Corporation (the Fluor Complex) from 1992 to 1995 (the December 2011 action). The plaintiff and the decedent alleged the decedent inhaled drywall debris containing asbestos. The December 2011 action went to trial in September 2013 against …

Continue Reading

Appeal Dismissed as Interlocutory Since Entry of Judgment Still Pending

Supreme Court of Delaware, May 22, 2020

After a jury trial found in favor of the plaintiff in this asbestos matter, defendant Ford Motor Co. filed a motion for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur. The trial court denied Ford’s motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment, seeking the award of pre- and post-judgment interest under New Mexico law. While the plaintiff’s motion was pending, Ford filed a notice of appeal from the court’s March 3, 2020 Order …

Continue Reading