State Archives - Page 31 of 44 - Asbestos Case Tracker

No Error in Recommendation of Summary Judgment Where Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Causation

Summary Judgment was recommended by the magistrate for the plaintiffs’ failure to establish causation in this case. The plaintiff appealed and contended that his asbestos related disease was a result of exposure to asbestos from Foster Wheeler boilers while working onboard the USS Gridley.

The court noted that the standard of review of a magistrate’s report and recommendation is de novo. In this case, no party objected to the application of maritime law. Accordingly, the plaintiff had the burden to show: 1) The plaintiff …

January 10, 2017 Case Decisions / Federal Officer Removal / Florida

Posted by: Lynn A. Lehnert

Crane Asserted a Colorable Federal Defense to Establish Jurisdiction Under Federal Officer Removal Statute

The plaintiff sued various defendants for negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent inducement. Crane removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and plaintiff moved to remand. The court denied this motion.

To remove under Section 1442(a)(1) the defendant must qualify as a “person” under the federal officer removal statute, must act under the direction of a federal officer at the time the defendant engaged in the allegedly tortious act, and must advance a “colorable federal defense.” Also, a causal connection must appear between …

January 3, 2017 Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Delaware / Maritime/Admiralty Law / Summary Judgment

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Lack of Exposure Evidence and Opposition

The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Evans developed an asbestos related disease as a result of his exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans alleged that he worked as a fireman and boiler tender on-board the USS Kearsarge from 1957-61 and USS Bole in 1961. Mr. Evans believed that he had been exposed to asbestos from gaskets and refractory products while in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans also alleged that he had been exposed to brake dust …

January 3, 2017 Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Delaware / Maritime/Admiralty Law / Summary Judgment

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Establish Exposure Evidence

The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working with the U.S. Navy from 1961-64 and from 1961-78 with various employers. Defendant Crane Co. removed the case to the U.S. District Court on August 31, 2015. Defendants CBS Corporation, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, FMC Corporation, and Ingersoll Rand moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed no opposition to those motions.

The court began its analysis with the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is …

January 3, 2017 Case Decisions / Delaware / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Maritime/Admiralty Law

Posted by: David E. Rutkowski

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Apply Federal Maritime Law

Plaintiffs Ralph Elliott Shaw and Joan Sanderson Shaw initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of Delaware on February 26, 2015 asserting various causes of action arising out of Mr. Shaw’s alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment. Specifically, the plaintiff’s allegations include Mr. Shaw’s occupational exposure as a sheet metal worker in Groton, Connecticut from approximately 1952 to 1954 and 1957 to 1967. Mr. Shaw alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment, at various submarine factories and shipyards with respect …

December 28, 2016 Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Florida / Remand/Removal

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

Remand Denied Under Federal Officer Jurisdiction Analysis for Plaintiff Alleging Asbestos Exposure in U.S. Navy

Plaintiff Marc Killiam served in the U.S. Navy from 1973 to 1977 aboard the USS McCandless while at sea and in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. He alleges that as a boiler tender he removed and replaced various asbestos containing products and that exposure to asbestos from those products caused his asbestosis. He filed suit in Hillsborough County, Florida on September 26, 2016 against various defendants, including Crane Co. Crane removed the case to the U.S. District Court on October 13, 2016 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. …

December 27, 2016 California / Case Decisions

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

Defense Judgment Affirmed Under Consumer Expectation Test

David Baeza and Vana Baeza filed suit against defendants including Special Electric Company, a distributor of raw crocidolite asbestos fibers called ML-6 following his diagnosis with mesothelioma. Special Electric had supplied ML-6 raw asbestos fibers to Johns-Manville beginning in the mid-1970s. David Baeza’s father had worked at a Johns-Manville plant in Long Beach, California, and David was exposed as a child to asbestos dust that clung to his father’s shoes, clothes, hair, and skin. At the time of trial, the only causes of action that …

December 9, 2016 California / Case Decisions / Summary Judgment

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

Summary Judgment for Brake Manufacturer Reversed as Circumstantial Evidence of Exposure Sufficient to Show Triable Issue of Fact

The plaintiffs, wife and sons of Henry Linsowe, filed a complaint in 2011 alleging causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Linsowe worked as a brake mechanic at Downey Ford from 1969 to 1986 and that he was exposed to asbestos “during various activities, including handling, beveling, removing, cutting, scoring, grinding, shaping, drilling, and installing of asbestos-containing brake pads and shoes, and the use of compressed air to clean and remove asbestos dust from …

December 7, 2016 Case Decisions / Illinois

Posted by: Asbestos Case Tracker

GE Granted Dismissal on Personal Jurisdiction Grounds While Plaintiff’s Loss of Consortium Claim Remains Against Several Defendants

The plaintiff filed this complaint against multiple defendants asserting claims in negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, and loss of consortium for her decedent’s development of mesothelioma. The decedent was alleged to have been exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy on board the USS Maryland from 1941-46.

Three defendants moved to dismiss the loss of consortium claim. The moving defendants argued that Illinois’ wrongful death act rendered her survival loss of consortium claim as “superfluous.” The plaintiff countered and argued that her loss …

December 2, 2016 California / Case Decisions

Posted by: Lynn A. Lehnert

Duty Exists for Employers and Property Owners’ to Prevent Take-Home Exposure; Duty Extends Only to Workers’ Household

Two cases addressed whether employers or landowners owed a duty to prevent secondary exposure to asbestos. Trial and appellate courts reached varying conclusions on this issue; here, the California Supreme Court determined that while employers and premises owners had a duty to prevent asbestos exposure carried home on the bodies and clothing of on-site workers, this duty extended only to members of a worker’s household.

In the first case, Johnny Kesner died of peritoneal mesothelioma. His uncle George Kesner worked at Pneumo Abex; during this …