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 ReadingCategory: State
Court 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 ReadingExclusion of Belated Theory of Exposure Upheld on Appeal
The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including “asbestos” and “premises” defendants, asserting claims of negligence, strict liability and premises liability based on his alleged asbestos exposure in the City of Coalinga (where he resided from 1959 to 1972) and during his 30-year career as a pipe inspector.
Defendant PAC Operating Limited Partnership was sued as a premises defendant. Its predecessor, Southern Pacific Land Company (SPLC), owned 557 acres of land in the Diablo Mountain Range, located 17 miles outside of Coalinga. In 1961, SPLC leased the …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment for Crane Manufacturer Based on Affidavit of Company Vice President
Plaintif Katherine Filosi, individually and as executor of the estate of Donald Filosi, filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including American Crane & Equipment Corporation (ACECO). The plaintiff alleged that the decedent Donald Filosi was exposed to asbestos while employed by Boat Corporation (Electric Boat) as a rigger from 1961 to 1998 and, as a result of that exposure, he developed lung cancer and died.
Defendant ACECO moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff produced no evidence from which a jury could conclude that …
Continue ReadingCourt Denies Multiple Motions including Plaintiff and Ford Motor Co.’s Daubert Motions, Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff James Waite and his wife Sandra Waite brought this action against Ford Motor Co. and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for Mr. Waites’ alleged development of mesothelioma from his work on brakes and clutches. UCC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was at first denied by the Court but then granted on UCC’s Motion for Reconsideration. Ford then moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts (Daubert Motion) and for summary judgment. The plaintiff moved to preclude various elements of Ford’s proposed expert witness testimony …
Continue Reading