Friction Manufacturer’s Objection to Motion to Compel Denied Due to Untimely Submission of Affidavit

KENTUCKY – The plaintiff, Jack Papineau, alleged that he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma from exposure to Honeywell’s asbestos-containing brake products. The plaintiff sought an order from the magistrate judge to compel Honeywell to answer one interrogatory and respond to one request for production concerning lawsuits alleging exposure to Honeywell asbestos-containing friction products. Honeywell opposed.

Per the magistrate judge’s order, the plaintiff filed an amended request that limited the scope of the requested documentation. Honeywell responded to the supplemental request and attached the affidavit of …

Continue Reading

Five Million Dollar Verdict Against Caulk and Tape Manufacturer Reversed for Lack of Evidence of Substantial Factor

ILLINOIS – The plaintiffs brought suit against more than 50 defendants alleging their decedent, Willard Krumwiede, developed and passed from mesothelioma as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos for which the defendants were liable. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Krumwiede was exposed to asbestos tape and caulk made by Tremco. Both products were purported to contain chrysotile fibers. According to the plaintiffs, Krumwiede used the products during his career as a window glazer where he installed panes of glass into wood and aluminum frames. …

Continue Reading

Lack of Admissible Evidence Against General Electric Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment in Maritime Meso Case

CONNECTICUT – The Carlson’s brought suit against several defendants including General Electric (GE) alleging that Kurt Carlson developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to the defendants’ asbestos-containing products while working as a radiological control technician for General Dynamics/Electric Boat Corp. from 1973-1974. The plaintiffs provided answers to interrogatories to GE. The answers did not list GE as the plaintiff’s employer or as a product to which he was exposed. The plaintiff was also deposed and did not name GE as a product to which …

Continue Reading

Illinois First District Appellate Court Affirms $4.89 Million Verdict

ILLINOIS – On December 19, 2019, the Illinois First District Appellate Court affirmed $4.89 million verdict rendered in favor of deceased pleural mesothelioma claimant, Patrick O’Reilly, against the defendant, John Crane, Inc.

The decedent O’Reilly was a union pipefitter from 1957 to 1998, and alleged that he was exposed to asbestos from replacing and installing valves using packing and gaskets manufactured by John Crane. Following trial, a Cook County jury awarded damages in the amount of $6,022,814.06. The court reduced the verdict by $1,137,500 in …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Civil Conspiracy Claims Fail Due to Established Illinois Precedent

ILLINOIS — In John Jones et al. v. Pneumo-Abex LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled on consolidated appeals of Owens-Illinois, Inc. and Pneumo Abex LLC regarding conspiracy claims related to suppressing information about the dangers of asbestos. Approximately 20 years ago, this court held that jury verdicts entered against Owens Corning and Owens-Illinois based on claims of civil conspiracy could not stand and that those defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court reached the same …

Continue Reading

Johnson & Johnson Wins another Talc Trial

CALIFORNIA – On December 16, 2019, after a day-and-a-half of deliberations following a trial that had begun in October, a Los Angeles, California jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of defendant, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), finding that it was not liable for the plaintiff, Pui “Amy” Fong’s mesothelioma. Fong, a mother of two who immigrated to the United States from Hong Kong in 1984 at the age of 13, alleged that she had been exposed to asbestos from using J&J baby powder since 1971.…

Continue Reading

Incorrect Rule Applied to Determine Whether Compensatory Damages Were Excessive; $40.6 Million Verdict Remanded

DELAWARE – On June 8, 2018, a Delaware jury awarded $40.6 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiff, Paula Knecht, in a case previously reported by this blog. The defendant, Ford Motor Company (Ford), was assessed 20 percent liability, meaning the plaintiff was awarded $8.1 million against Ford.

Subsequently, Ford filed two post-trial motions:

  1. for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, a new trial
  2. for a new trial, or in the alternative, remittitur.

The trial judge denied both motions and Ford …

Continue Reading

Evidence of Prior Asbestos Lawsuits Against Defendant Discoverable

KENTUCKY – The plaintiffs, Jack and Holly Papineau, filed a lawsuit against several defendants alleging damages suffered from exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the defendant Honeywell to supplement answers to interrogatories and requests for production, specifically regarding prior lawsuits. After oral argument, the court requested that the plaintiffs narrow the scope of their supplemental requests. The plaintiffs complied, requesting information and documents pertaining to all lawsuits filed against Honeywell wherein the claimant alleged an asbestos-related disease from exposure to Honeywell …

Continue Reading

Ten Motions for Summary Judgment Granted due to Lack of Identification

DELAWARE – The plaintiffs, Kent and Cathy Mosher, filed an asbestos-related action in Delaware Superior Court on January 25, 2018. The complaint alleged Kent Mosher contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure during his employment as a boiler technician in the United States Navy from 1973 to 1977 and through his employment at the Henderson Mine in Denver, CO from 1977 to 1983. The defendant, Crane Co., removed this matter to Delaware District Court in March 2018 pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, …

Continue Reading

Court Denies Motion for Reargument; Finds No Misapprehension of Facts or Newly Discovered Evidence

The plaintiff, Janet Stimson, filed a Motion for Reargument on behalf of her husband, Gary Stimson, following the court’s decision granting summary judgment on behalf of the defendant, J-MM, on the issue of product identification.

The plaintiff alleged that

  1. The court misapprehended the facts relevant to the decedent’s identification of J-MM’s A/C pipe
  2. The deposition testimony of a J-MM employee from an unrelated 2014 case constitutes newly discovered evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding product identification

The court was also provided …

Continue Reading