The decedent in this case, Michael Walashek, alleged exposure to asbestos from various products, including Cleaver-Brooks boilers, during the course of his work for various entities between 1967 and 1986. The exposure allegedly caused him to “suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death.” The plaintiff, Gail Walashek, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and other entities alleging claims of negligence and strict liability in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary …
Continue ReadingCategory: State
Special Electric’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Overturned on Appeal Despite Sale of Raw Asbestos Was to Sophisticated User Johns Manville
Plaintiff William Webb brought a claim against multiple defendants for his alleged development of mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to crocidolite while working for Pyramid Pipe as a warehouseman and truck driver.
A supplier of raw asbestos, defendant Special Electric, was found liable for failure to warn and negligence. Special Electric supplied the Johns Manville Corporation with raw crocidolite asbestos to be used in the manufacturer of multiple Johns Manville products. The court noted that Johns Manville was a vast manufacturer with …
Continue ReadingApplying Connecticut Law, Court Finds Existence of Duty in Asbestos Claim Against Sporting Goods Properties, Inc.
Surviving spouse and personal representative of the decedent filed a three-count complaint against multiple defendants, alleging failure to warn, loss of consortium, and conspiracy due to damages from alleged asbestos exposure. Defendant Sporting Goods Properties, Inc. filed a motion to strike all three counts for failure to state a claim, which plaintiff opposed. The court denied the defendant’s motion to strike as to counts one and two, but granted as to count three.
Sporting Goods argued a clear disconnect between the duty to warn of …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded to State Court as Defendants Could Not Use the Federal Officer Removal Statute Where the Plaintiff Expressly Disclaimed Any Naval Asbestos Exposure
Plaintiff Richard Batchelor, a former employee of Florida Power & Light Company who was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma after he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, or controlled, by the defendants, sued in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County Florida alleging three causes of action; (i) negligence; (ii) strict liability; and (iii) loss of consortium. Following Batchelor’s deposition, during which he testified that he served in the U.S. Navy and, …
Continue ReadingDistrict Court’s Denial of Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Reversed Upon Reconsideration on the Basis of Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
The plaintiff, who developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos products while working in Massachusetts between the 1940s and 1970s, sued the defendant Union Carbide and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where he later moved, seeking compensatory damages pursuant to causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and failure to use reasonable care. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion. The defendant then filed …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appeals Court Applies “Inevitable Use” and Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment as to Brake Arcing Defendant
The appellant brought an appeal on behalf of her late husband, Frank Rondon, arguing that the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment as to her claims for strict liability and negligence. 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 it did not manufacturer, distribute, or design asbestos containing products. Hennessy relied upon expert declarations that non-asbestos brake show linings were available in the …
Continue ReadingU.S. District Court of Connecticut Denies Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Count Based on Sufficiency of Pleading
In this case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs’ third count of their complaint alleges reckless conduct by the defendants and seeks punitive damages. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved to dismiss this count, arguing that the plaintiff failed to assert specific allegations of recklessness. The court noted, however, that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants manufactured, distributed, sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which contained asbestos and that the defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Reversed on Appeal for Brake Shoe Grinder Manufacturer on the Basis of Foreseeable Hazard With Inevitable Use and Normal Operation of its Non-asbestos Containing Product
The plaintiff’s decedent, who developed breathing difficulties and lung damage as a result of asbestos exposure, filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that from approximately 1958-62, he was a mechanic who utilized brake shoe arcing machines (known as “grinders”) manufactured by the defendant for the purpose of grinding down/reshaping the friction material of brake shoes via mechanical abrasion. When a grinder came into contact with a brake shoe which contained asbestos in is lining, it would release asbestos into the air. Accordingly, it was …
Continue ReadingBoilermaker Contractor Granted Summary Judgment Over Past Employee as No Proof Existed of Exposure Outside of His Work Directly for Contractor
The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death and survival action claiming their decedent, Michael Walashek, developed mesothelioma from his work as a career boiler maker from 1967-86. The plaintiff’s social security records listed his employers FBS, Inc. and Camass Company, along with others. The case was removed to federal court and FBS, Inc. moved for summary judgment. Previously, a gasket manufacturer and cloth manufacturer moved for and were granted summary judgment. A summary of that decision can be found here.
Specially, FBS, Inc. argued that …
Continue ReadingJury’s Finding of No Liability for Manufacturer’s Failure to Warn of Dangers of Exposure to Asbestos Reversed on Basis That Evidence was Insufficient to Support Verdict
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that from 1968 to 1980, he was a salesman for Kaiser Refractories whose clientele was primarily large industrial facilities to which a quarter of what he sold was asbestos-containing insulation, including refractory material, or material used to insulate the interior metal surfaces of industrial boilers and heaters. He also frequently helped remove and install insulation and refractory at his clientele’s facilities. The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2011 and then sued a number of manufacturers …
Continue Reading