Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court; certain debtors’ subsidiaries have potential liability related to former employees’ alleged exposure to asbestos in power plants owned or operated by debtors’ predecessors. The bankruptcy court issued an order setting a bar date for all asbestos claimants, establishing requirements for proofs of claim for manifested and unmanifested asbestos claimants, and notice procedures. Appellants filed a motion seeking to have the court, among other things, certify a class of persons holding unmanifested asbestos claims. …
Continue ReadingCategory: State
Due Precaution Exception to General Rule of Non-Liability for Independent Contractors Applied to Potentially Establish Liability Against Premises Owners
The plaintiff was an industrial and commercial electrician diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. He and his wife filed a complaint alleging negligence against various defendants. The plaintiffs argued defendants were vicariously liable for the acts of their independent contractor employees (non-delegable duty doctrine), those of their own employees (respondeat superior), and as premises owners. Defendants Bremen Casting and Mastic Home Exteriors moved for summary judgment, which was partially granted on the negligence of independent contractor and premises liability claims. All parties moved for interlocutory appeal. …
Continue ReadingCourt Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant Boiler Manufacturer Based on Lack of Causation Under Maritime Law
Plaintiffs Jimmy R. Mitchell and Connie Mitchell filed suit alleging that Mr. Mitchell developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, in part during the course of his employment as a boiler fireman with the U.S. Navy from 1976-79.
Defendant Foster Wheeler filed for summary judgment and argued, among other things, lack of causation. To establish causation under maritime law (which both parties agree applied), plaintiffs must show that (1) Mr. Mitchell was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler; (2) the exposure …
Continue ReadingBreakdown of $21 Million Verdict in Miami, Florida
On August 30, 2016, a Miami, Florida jury awarded nearly $21.4 million in damages to Richard Batchelor and his wife, Regina, in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that Bechtel Corporation caused his mesothelioma. The case proceeded only against the defendants Bechtel Corporation and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, as Foster Wheeler settled the day before the verdict. The verdict sheet demonstrates that, after the jury found that negligence on the part of Bechtel was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s damages, the jury turned to …
Continue ReadingCourt Reverses Verdict Against Crane Co. and Remands as to Cigarette Defendants After Daubert Challenge
Plaintiff Richard Delisle filed suit against multiple defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to sheet gaskets manufactured by Crane Co. and from the asbestos fibers from Micronite filters from smoking Kent cigarettes. The jury found both defendants’ products were a substantial contributing cause (SCC) of the development of Delisle’s mesothelioma. Both defendants unsuccessfully moved for directed verdicts and filed for appeal.
Crane Co. argued that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. James Dahlgren should not have been permitted to testify as an expert …
Continue ReadingNo Harm No Foul in Asbestos Product Liability Action With Physical Injury
In a recent decision out of an Illinois appellate court, it was held that physical injury does not always equate to compensable physical harm. In the case of Sondag v. Pneumo Abex Corp., et al, the plaintiffs, Joseph and Phyllis Sondag, sued various defendants they claimed exposed Joseph Sondag to asbestos, which lead to his developing pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Tremco, Inc. manufactured asbestos containing tape that was used by Joseph as a professional plasterer. The case …
Continue ReadingDefendants Petition California Supreme Court to Review Duty of Care Standard Regarding Take-Home Exposures
In the consolidated matters of Kesner and Havner, the defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court to find there is no duty on employers to protect against take-home exposures experienced by those who are neither employees nor visitors to the employer’s premises; including that of an employee’s spouse or family member.
In the Havner matter, the plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against defendant BNSF Railway Company, alleging claims for wrongful death based on theories of negligence and premises liability due to the plaintiff’s take-home …
Continue ReadingCalifornia High Court Declines to Review Appellate Reversal of Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment
On August 25, 2016, the California Supreme Court, without a written opinion, declined to hear a petition to review an appellate panel’s decision to overturn a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hennessy Industries Inc. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the decedent, Frank Rondon, worked as a mechanic using defendant Hennessy’s (Ammco Tools) brake arcing machines designed to grind asbestos brake shoes. Hennessy moved for summary judgment arguing that the brake grinders did not contain asbestos and plaintiffs could not establish that …
Continue ReadingRemand Granted Based on Finding that Plaintiffs Acted in Good Faith Naming Defendant With State Contact
The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including several “citizens” of California. Four days before trial defendant John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court on diversity. The plaintiff then moved to remand.
The court began its analysis by stating the legal standard for removal which permits removal when the federal court could have “exercised original jurisdiction” in the case. Additionally, the burden falls upon the removing defendant. A case may be removed under diversity unless one of the parties is a properly joined and served …
Continue ReadingMagistrate Judge Recommends Various Rulings on Five Summary Judgment Motions Filed by Defendants
The United States Magistrate Judge recommended disposition on five summary judgment motions filed by various defendants in this mesothelioma case wherein plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure during plaintiff Mark Hillyer’s employment with the U.S. Navy from 1967-1997. The only product identification witness was plaintiff Mark Hillyer, who testified that he was exposed to asbestos through his maintenance work on reactor plant systems, steam plant systems, engines, and turbine generators. In deciding these motions, the court applied maritime law such that plaintiff must show that (1) he …
Continue Reading