Motion for Summary Judgment Denied under Sophisticated User and Purchaser Doctrine

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

In this asbestos action, plaintiff Ted Matherne Sr. worked at the Avondale Shipyards. In addition, defendant Hopeman Brothers Inc. placed Micarta from Westinghouse “as a component part of the composite wall and bulkhead panels it suppled to Avondale for use aboard ships.”

Defendant Paramount Global (Westinghouse) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn as defendant Hopeman was a sophisticated user and purchaser of Micarta. Westinghouse contends Hopeman was aware …

Continue Reading
Wooden judge gavel, close-up view.

Motion for Summary Judgment of Valve Manufacturer Denied

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Plaintiff-Decedent John Gonder alleged exposure to asbestos during his employment as a Con Edison inspector between the 1970s and 1990s. He died in May 2021 at 86 years old from lung cancer. Defendant Jenkins Bros. filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Gonder did not identify Jenkins as a manufacturer of asbestos-containing valves to which he alleged exposure. Jenkins also challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s expert reports with respect to causation.

In …

Continue Reading
judge's gavel and books

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Workers’ Compensation Defense Denied

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Morse Diesel Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff Matthew D’Alessio’s claims were barred by New York State Worker’s Compensation Law. In support of its motion, Morse Diesel pointed to D’Alessio’s deposition testimony in which he claimed to be an employee of Morse Diesel at a jobsite near Brooklyn Law School. In further support, Morse Diesel provided an affidavit from its corporate representative stating that they carry workers’ compensation insurance.…

Continue Reading
Judge chamber with gavel

Motion for Summary Judgment of Gasket and Packing Manufacturer Granted in Part and Denied in Part

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Plaintiffs Chloyde Pelton and Shirley Pelton sued Defendant John Crane Inc. for negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and strict liability, alleging that Pelton developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos-containing products, including gaskets and packing, in the United States Navy. Pelton served as a pipefitter and shipfitter aboard the U.S.S. Lyman K Swenson from1959 to 1961, the U.S.S. Pritchett from 1961 to 1962, and the U.S.S. Frontier for 10 …

Continue Reading
judge's gavel and books

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Shipyard Subcontractor Granted

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Defendant Hopeman Brothers Inc. moved for partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims of intentional tort, alter ego, and manufacturer strict liability.

In order to satisfy their intentional tort claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate that Hopeman “either consciously desired that plaintiff contract mesothelioma or knew that the result was substantially certain to follow from its conduct.” A substantial certainty is more than “knowingly permitting a hazardous work condition to exist.” The court concluded that …

Continue Reading
judge's gavel and books

Glove Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment in NYCAL

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, decedent Giacinto Pira alleged he was exposed to asbestos from gloves manufactured by defendant Steel Grip.

Steel Grip moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff did not establish exposure to asbestos or causation from Steel Grip gloves. In support, Steel Grip proffered an expert report opining that the levels of asbestos released from their gloves would not be sufficient to cause mesothelioma. Plaintiff opposed Steel Grip’s motion, citing plaintiff’s testimony identifying Steel Grip …

Continue Reading
The law concept background.

Valve Manufacturer Succeeds on Motion for Summary Judgement

Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging decedent suffered asbestos exposure from numerous product manufacturers during the course of his employment as a mechanic for Con Ed from 1974 to 2012. Prior to his passing, decedent was deposed. Defendant Crosby Valves filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that decedent was not exposed to asbestos from any Crosby product. Specifically, the defendant referenced decedent’s testimony regarding the use of flange gaskets in connection with Crosby valves, …

Continue Reading
Law theme. Judge chamber.

Printing Press Manufacturers’ Motions for Summary Judgment Denied

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

In this asbestos action, defendants L3Harris Technologies Inc. and Heidelberg USA Inc. moved separately for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff Raymond Desiena did not establish exposure to asbestos from his work on Harris or Heidelberg-branded printing presses during his work as a printing press operator from the 1960s-1980s.

Regarding Harris printing presses, Harris noted that Desiena implicated Harris’s printing presses as utilizing asbestos-containing parts — specifically, friction brakes manufactured by Airflex. In response to this …

Continue Reading
judge's gavel and books

Valve Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Granted

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

In this asbestos action, defendant Crosby Valve LLC moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that plaintiff John B. Daly Jr. was not exposed to asbestos from any Crosby product.

Specifically, Crosby’s motion was based on Daly’s testimony that he was exposed to asbestos from “flange gaskets” used along with Crosby valves, and not actually manufactured by Crosby.

Ultimately, the court determined that Daly’s testimony did not indicate any products manufactured by Crosby, and …

Continue Reading
Judge chamber with gavel

Three Manufacturers’ Motions for Summary Judgment Denied for Failure to Meet Initial Burden

Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

In this asbestos action, defendants Union Carbide Corporation, Domco Product Texas Inc., and The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company moved separately for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff Josip L. Radovic failed to identify them as manufacturers of any asbestos-containing products that he was allegedly exposed to during the course of his work as a laborer installing floor tiles in various buildings in the Rockefeller Center complex between 1970 and 1979. The court denied each …

Continue Reading