Category: Summary Judgment

Bare Metal/Component Parts / Case Decisions / Maritime/Admiralty Law / South Carolina / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Valve Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Denied in Failure to Warn Case Despite Bare Metal Defense

The plaintiffs brought this action against Crane Co. alleging James Chesher developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos containing packing and gaskets found inside Crane Co. valves while he served in the United States Navy from 1965-1989.

The court began its discussion by stating the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Expert Affidavit Does Not Create a Question of Fact for Nonmoving Party in Motion for Summary Judgment

On February 8, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendants Crane Co., Warren Pumps LL, and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Buffalo) separate motions for summary judgment with regards to all causation counts of the plaintiff’s complaint.

The plaintiff asserted state law causes of actions against the defendants based on David MacQueen’s (the decedent) employment in the U.S. Navy. The decedent was aboard the U.S.S. Randolph and the U.S.S. Independence from 1956-60. The plaintiff alleged that Crane, Warren, and …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Automotive Parts Manufacturers Granted Summary Judgment in Secondary Exposure Case

The plaintiff sued various automotive parts manufacturers, alleging secondary asbestos exposure from the work of his father, a mechanic. The plaintiff had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s father worked at Bekins warehouse from June 1974-May 1982, where he did brake, clutch, and engine gasket repair. The plaintiff visited his father at work, helped him at work, and father’s clothes were washed at home. Products identified in discovery included: two Ford trucks; four International semi-truck tractors; Rockwell axles; Carlisle brake linings; Grizzley brake linings (Maremont, …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Connecticut / Summary Judgment / Take-Home Exposure
Posted by:

Summary Judgment Granted to Asbestos Paper Products Manufacturer in Take-Home Exposure Case Based on No Duty to Warn

Plaintiff Dorothy Ramsey, through her estate, alleged that the defendant Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center (Herty) negligently failed to warn her of the risks of take-home exposure to Herty’s asbestos paper products used at her husband’s work from 1976-80. She alleged this exposure caused her to develop lung cancer. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The central issue in this case was whether Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. and Riedel …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New York / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Fire Door Manufacturer Obtains Summary Judgment in NYCAL; No Duty to Warn Against Latent Dangers from Unforeseeable Use of Product

Defendants International Paper Company and Owens-Illinois, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted. All Craft Fabricators, Inc. was hired to do millwork in refurbishing the United Nations headquarters. The general contractor issued a change order to use salvaged wood panels and doors from the Under-Secretary General’s office. These materials were resized and cut for use as interior cabinets at the United Nations building. External testing performed by All Craft showed that the dust from these materials contained asbestos.

An affidavit from a professional engineer …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

In Bystander Exposure Case, Plaintiff Failed to Demonstrate that Defendant Had a Duty to Warn

Plaintiff Daniel Hiett developed mesothelioma and alleged bystander exposure from his father’s work. The plaintiff alleged negligence and strict liability claims based on a failure to warn theory. The circuit court granted defendant AC&R Insulation Company, Inc,.’s (AC&R) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that several material facts distinguished their case from Georgia Pacific, LLC v. Farrar, 432 Md. 532 (2013), which held that a manufacturer/distributor of a product containing asbestos did not owe a duty to warn the household member of …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Summary Judgment Affirmed Against School Board Where Exception to Immunity Applied

The plaintiffs filed suit against 40 defendants and the Pittsburgh School District Board of Public Education (PBE). The plaintiffs contended the defendants were responsible for Ms. Geier contracting mesothelioma while she worked as a school teacher at South Hill High School from 1959-59. During discovery, Ms. Geier stated in an affidavit that she was occupationally exposed to 1) pipe coverings, 2) floor tile, 3) drywall, and 4) joint compound.

At the close of discovery, PBE moved for summary judgment and asserted the defense of governmental …

Continue Reading
Bankruptcy / Case Decisions / Pennsylvania / Summary Judgment / Take-Home Exposure
Posted by:

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Favor of Successor Premises Owner Where Bankruptcy Code Extinguished Claims

Jacqueline and Thomas Wagner filed suit against Standard Steel LLC for Ms. Wagner’s alleged development of mesothelioma as a result of take home exposure from the work clothes of her husband. Mr. Wagner worked as a laborer and crane operator at Freedom Forge from 1970-72. Freedom Forge filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2001. Appellee Standard Steel LLC purchased the sale of Freedom Forge’s assets in 2002. The bankruptcy court confirmed the sale and found: 1) the sale price was fair and reasonable at an …

Continue Reading
Damages / Summary Judgment / Take-Home Exposure / Washington
Posted by:

Verdict Against Brand Insulation Upheld on Various Grounds, Including that General Negligence Duty of Care Recognized for Take Home Exposure

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, finding Brand Insulation, Inc. liable for the mesothelioma suffered by Barbara Brandes due to secondary asbestos exposure from her husband’s work at ARCO. Brand appealed, and the plaintiff appealed the remittitur reducing the damages award from $3.5 million to $2.5 million. The court affirmed the verdict and reversed the remittitur.

Brand was an insulation subcontractor during construction of the ARCO Cherry Point Refinery. At first Brand installed asbestos-free insulation, but later switched to asbestos insulation due …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Inconsistent Testimony is an Issue for Trial; Summary Judgment is Denied

On January 17, 2017, the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle denied RCH Newco II LLC’s (Newco) motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Jessie Hastings, alleged that he contracted colon cancer as a result of his exposure to Newco’s asbestos-containing product, Galbestos. Galbestos was a material that protected metal and roofing products. Mr. Hastings was the only product identification witness and testified in two depositions.

In his first deposition, Mr. Hastings testified that he began working at DuPont’s Chestnut Run facility in 1951-52. He testified …

Continue Reading