Sale Transaction Documents Obviate Need for Policy Interpretation

OREGON – The plaintiff Allianz Global Risks US Ins. Co. defended and indemnified its insured, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, as successor to Freightliner, in three CERCLA cases and more than 1,500 asbestos personal injury cases. It then brought suit seeking contribution against several insurance companies that had issued insurance policies to Con-way, Inc., the former parent company of Freightliner, for policy years that were implicated in the underlying asbestos actions. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants on several policy interpretation issues, …

Continue Reading

Boiler Manufacturer’s Affirmative Defenses of Sophisticated User and Superseding Cause Dismissed on Summary Judgment

MARYLAND — The plaintiff brought suit against several defendants including Foster Wheeler alleging her decedent, Mr. Morris, developed and passed from mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos while working at Bethlehem Steel Sparrows Point Shipyard from 1948-1970’s. Foster Wheeler asserted various defenses in its amended answer including the defenses of sophisticated user and superseding cause. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on those two defenses.

The court started its analysis by noting the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate …

Continue Reading

Court Partially Grants Two Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Based on Expiration of Statute of Limitations Under Washington Law

WASHINGTON — In Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., the United States District Court of the Western District of Washington recently ruled on two defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This case involved Thomas A. Deem (Mr. Deem), who worked at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1981 as an apprentice and journeyman, and alleged asbestos exposure from 1974 through 1979. Mr. Deem was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2015, and died in July 2015.

In November 2017, Mr. Deem’s wife …

Continue Reading

Union Carbide Obtains Summary Judgment Due to Speculative Evidence

DELAWARE — The plaintiff, Jane Rowland, alleged she developed mesothelioma from washing her husband’s clothes. Her husband performed home remodeling projects in Ohio in the 1970s using Georgia-Pacific joint compound. the plaintiff alleged that Union Carbide was responsible for her injuries because it supplied asbestos to Georgia-Pacific for use in its joint compound. Specifically, Union Carbide supplied Calidria asbestos to Georgia-Pacific.

The plaintiff argued in opposition to Union Carbide’s Motion for summary judgment that there was evidence that Georgia-Pacific’s Chicago plant distributed to the Midwest, …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Worksite Control Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment in Premises Liability Case”

DELAWARE — The plaintiff Werner Rath brought suit against several premise defendants including Delmarva Power and Light, Four Star Oil and Gas Company, Texaco, Inc. and Sunoco (defendants) alleging exposure to asbestos while working for Catalytic at worksites owned by the defendants. Specifically, Mr. Rath alleged exposure to asbestos from other trades working around him while he built and dismantled scaffolding at the different sites. The other trades were also employed by Catalytic. Relying on several precedent cases, the defendants moved for summary judgment arguing …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Granted in Secondary Exposure Case

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

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

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

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

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