The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that from 1956 to 1990, he was employed by the defendant and “spent a significant portion of that time ‘dealing with asbestos, fiber glass products and other hazardous products.’” The three causes of action were for: (1) premises liability; (2) negligence; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant removed the case to the Northern District of California and then moved to dismiss it on the grounds that California’s Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive …
Continue ReadingCategory: State
Lack of Evidence Linking Decedent’s Asbestos Exposure to Defendants Leads to Summary Judgment for Pump and Valve Manufacturers and Contractor
The plaintiff, George Holland, brought this action on behalf of the decedent, Owen Holland, alleging exposure to asbestos from his work at Monsanto Chemical Plant from 1967–2004. From 1974-2002, the decedent worked with external components of pumps and valves manufactured by Goulds and Crane. He also would sweep packing from around the pumps and fibers from around the valves. Both Goulds and Crane moved for—and were denied—summary judgment. Defendant Fluor Daniel preformed construction and maintenance work at Monsanto from 1967-1998. Its motion for summary judgment …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Affirmed Where Plaintiff Failed to Produce Sufficient Evidence of Asbestos Exposure
In this case, the plaintiff Melvin Desin, an electrician, alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while working at various job sites in the 1960s and early 1970s, including on seven or eight occasions in the vicinity of painters employed by defendant Zelinsky, a painting contractor. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he worked in close proximity to the Zelinsky workers, who patched and sanded walls and joint compound in his presence. However, the plaintiff could not identify the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Affirmed as Evidence of Asbestos Impurities in Auto Body Filler Only Equated to a Possibility of Asbestos Exposure
In this case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, John DePree, was exposed to asbestos from various products, including the use of Bondo auto body filler in the 1970s to repair dents in his cars. BASF Catalysts, LLC moved for, and was granted, summary judgment based on its argument that the plaintiffs could not offer more than a mere possibility of exposure to asbestos from a BASF product since any asbestos in the Bondo talc was an impurity and not an intended ingredient. The plaintiffs …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Overturned on Triable Issue as to Medical Monitoring of Plaintiff’s Asbestos-Related Pleural Plaques
In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Robert Hanson, filed a complaint in 2010 against various defendants, including “Doe” defendants, alleging asbestos exposure caused his asbestosis. In 2012, the plaintiff substituted Collins Electrical Company for one of the Doe defendants. In 2013, Collins moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of asbestosis or any asbestos-related injury. While the motion was pending, the plaintiff was allowed to file a first amended complaint, which removed any reference to asbestosis and claimed …
Continue ReadingDespite Satisfying Foreseeability, Illinois Federal Court Finds No Duty in Secondary Take Home Exposure Case
The plaintiff filed an action for negligence in Illinois state court, alleging she contracted mesothelioma through “take home” exposure from her son, who used asbestos friction paper while working as a mechanic. The defendants removed to federal court based on diversity. Defendant MW Custom Papers LLC, as successor-in-interest to Mead Corporation, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe her a duty. The court granted the motion.
First, MW argued the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts as to foreseeability. The court …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded to State Court to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction as State Court Issues Predominate Case
In this case, the decedent Oscar Villanueva, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from various products while working at Glendale Auto Radio Stereo from 1969 to 1990. Defendant FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court since any judgment would have an impact on its bankruptcy estate. Defendant Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche moved to dismiss arguing improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the claim against FCA and moved to remand for lack of subject matter …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Allows Expert Opinion Testimony on “Every Exposure” Theory
The plaintiff presented expert testimonial evidence at trial that her father’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to his risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff; defendant Honeywell International appealed on two grounds: (1) the “every exposure” theory should have been excluded under California law, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to give a supplemental jury instruction regarding factors relevant to the substantial factor determination. The court found no error.
For …
Continue ReadingSection 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act Statute of Repose Found Unconstitutional
In this federal court case, three appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Indiana product liability act statute of repose were consolidated for review. Several defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of repose in each of the cases with various results. The plaintiffs now argue that section 2 of the statute draws a constitutional impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who have claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos and those asbestos plaintiffs that have claims against defendants that …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Remand Granted and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant’s Notice of Removal Both Substantively and Procedurally Improper
The plaintiff filed an action in California state court against various defendants after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises removed to federal court after it was the only remaining defendant on the basis of diversity. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
O’Reilly’s notice of removal was both substantively and procedurally improper. A complaint that is not initially removable due to non-diversity may become removable where diversity arises due to a plaintiff’s …
Continue Reading