Summary Judgment Granted in Secondary Exposure Case United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana., April 18, 2019

LOUISIANA – The plaintiffs, the children of Theresa Rodrigue (Ms. Rodrigue), allege their mother was secondarily exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured by multiple product manufacturers (defendants) who moved for summary judgment, respectively, when Ms. Rodrigue washed the clothing of her brother, a rigger in a shipyard. The court granted the defendants summary judgment on the basis that the evidence in the record was insufficient with respect to an essential element of the plaintiffs’ claims. Consequently, since no genuine factual dispute existed, summary judgment…
Continue reading...

Railroad Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Standing Denied United States District Court, D. Nebraska, April 19, 2019

NEBRASKA — In Bettisworth v. BNSF Railway Company, the court denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that the plaintiff was not the properly appointed representative for his late wife’s estate. The plaintiff’s wife was employed by the defendant from 1979 to 2012 as a laborer/hostler at the defendant’s yard in Alliance, Nebraska. During her employment, she was exposed to various toxic and carcinogenic substances, including various solvents, diesel fuel, benzene, creosote, silica dust, and asbestos insulation. The plaintiff alleged that the cumulative…
Continue reading...

Supplemental Depositions from Unrelated Actions Insufficient as Only Evidence of Exposure Supreme Court of New York, April 12, 2019

NEW YORK — The plaintiff John Spicijaric (decedent) was diagnosed with lung cancer in June 2014, and died one week later. Prior to his lung cancer diagnosis, The decedent was also diagnosed with asbestosis. The decedent was deposed in his asbestosis case in 1985, but was never deposed in the present action. The decedent was a member of the Local 12 Asbestos Workers Union, and remained a member through the early 1990s. The defendant Electrolux Home Products (Electrolux) moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Granted to Floor Tile Defendant in Esophageal Cancer Case Due to Insufficient Causation Evidence Supreme Court of New York, April 12, 2019

New York — The plaintiff was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in October 2013 and filed suit in 2014. The plaintiff identified ten projects where he worked with vinyl asbestos floor tile. In addition to defendant American Biltrite’s (ABI) tile, the plaintiff identified seven other brands of tiles he used throughout his career. The plaintiff could not state which specific tiles were used on any of the ten jobs he described. With regards to ABI, the plaintiff testified that he used their brand of tiles on…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Granted For Muffler Manufacturer Where Inference of Exposure Not Permitted Superior Court of Delaware, April 10, 2019

DELAWARE — The plaintiff, Jimmy Crawford, sued Tenneco Automotive Operating Company Inc. (Tenneco), among other defendants, alleging that his lung cancer was caused by asbestos present in Walker automotive mufflers. Prior to his death, the plaintiff testified that he worked at two automotive stations from 1963 to 1965, where he worked with Walker mufflers. He believed he was exposed to asbestos from the mufflers because he was potentially told by his father that the mufflers contained asbestos due to their high heat application. Tenneco moved…
Continue reading...

Estate’s Claims of Exposure from Steam Pipes That Were Not Connected to a Locomotive Survive Preemption Challenge U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 5, 2019

PENNSYLVANIA — The plaintiff’s decedent worked in Texas as an electrician from 1945 until 1989, and alleged exposure to asbestos from insulation that was incorporated into passenger railcars manufactured by Defendants from 1945 until the mid to late 1970s. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that asbestos exposure from pipe insulation and “arc chute” insulation in the passenger cars manufactured by the defendants was a cause of decedent’s mesothelioma and subsequent death. The railroad manufacturing defendants moved for summary judgement under the theory that the plaintiff’s claims…
Continue reading...

Meteorologist’s Opinion Insufficient to Support Environmental Claim to Asbestos; Summary Judgment Granted Superior Court of Delaware Superior Court of Delaware, April 5, 2019

DELAWARE — In Werner Rath v. 3M Company, et al., the court ruled on a defendant Oyj Partek Ab’s (Partek) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged occupational exposure to asbestos while working as a union carpenter at a number of industrial sites in Delaware and New Jersey. One week before the plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled to take place, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for leave to amend to file an amended complaint joining additional defendants, including Partek. Partek was one, non-exclusive supplier…
Continue reading...

Date of First Purchase Creates Material Fact Dispute, Automotive Supplier’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, March 13, 2019

WASHINGTON — The plaintiff Eric Klopman-Baerselman originally filed suit in state court on behalf of the plaintiff’s decedent Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, alleging that his exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, or distributed by the defendants substantially contributed to his mesothelioma. The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court. The allegations against the moving the defendant, O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. (O’Reilly) are that the plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, and gaskets purchased at Schuck’s, an entity under the O’Reilly umbrella. O’Reilly moved for…
Continue reading...

Lack of Evidence Against Premise Defendants Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment in Mesothelioma Case United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina, March 11, 2019

NORTH CAROLINA — The plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants including Farmers Chemical and Storage (Farmers) and Schlage alleging he developed mesothelioma from his occupational exposure to asbestos. Specifically, he claimed he was exposed to asbestos while working as a plumber and pipefitter from 1965-1982 for the local union. Farmers and Schlage moved for summary judgment. The court began its analysis and stated that summary judgment is warranted “the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is…
Continue reading...

Summary Judgment Denied to Asbestos Clothing Manufacturer Based on Plaintiff ‘s Contradictory Affidavit United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, March 12, 2019

OHIO –The plaintiff Donald MacLachlan brought suit against several defendants including American Optical (AO) alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working at the Weirton Steel plant from 1971-2008. He was deposed in 2015 and also alleged exposure to steam turbines manufactured by General Electric. As for AO, The plaintiff testified that he wore asbestos containing thermal gloves and coats manufactured by that defendant beginning in 1979 while working as a cast house helper. The plaintiff was adamant that the…
Continue reading...