Two opposing decisions were rendered by two different judges in two factually and legally similar groups of smoking lung cancer cases. In Harrell et al. and Boston et al., asbestos defendants filed nearly identical motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not recover because (1) the plaintiffs knew the hazards of smoking and assumed the risk, and (2) were contributorily negligent. Summary judgment was granted in one group (Harrell et al.) and denied in the other (Boston et al…
Continue ReadingCategory: Summary Judgment
Granting of Summary Judgment to Asbestos Insulation Supplier Based on Government Contractor Defense Upheld on Appeal
In this case, the plaintiff, Gary Kase, claimed exposure to asbestos insulation used in Navy nuclear submarines during the 1970s. Defendant Metalclad Insulation Corp. provided the asbestos-containing insulation, Unibestos, to the U.S. Navy. Metaclad moved for and was granted summary judgment based on the government contractor defense. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the court thoroughly reviewed the standards for summary judgment based on the government contractor defense pursuant to the seminal case Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988). Boyle set forth …
Continue ReadingPump Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgement Denied Because Burden of Proof Unsatisfied
Plaintiffs Patrick and Joy Demartino brought suit against various defendants after Patrick Demartino developed mesothelioma. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not use or sell external asbestos-containing gaskets. The court denied this motion.
It was undisputed that during the plaintiff’s time of alleged exposure to Aurora pumps while working at Walker-Prismatic from 1975-1986, Aurora used and sold asbestos-containing gaskets. The plaintiff testified that his only source of asbestos exposure from Aurora pumps was from replacement of external flange gaskets. …
Continue ReadingAffidavits Executed by Decedent Containing Product Identification Admissible Under Dying Declaration Hearsay Exception
Decedent John Pisano executed three affidavits regarding Sears products after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma; he died three months after his diagnosis and was never deposed. The affidavits detailed the decedent’s use of floor tile, ceiling tile, and mastic purchased from Sears. Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. moved for summary judgment on various bases. The plaintiff presented these three affidavits in opposition to Sears’ summary judgment motion. The court denied the motion for summary judgment.
Sears argued the plaintiff could not demonstrate any causal connection …
Continue ReadingMotion for Reconsideration Denied for Defendant’s Failure to Put Forth Necessary New Evidence
The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants including Foster Wheeler and Crane Co. for injuries allegedly sustained while Mr. Osterhaut served in the U.S. Navy onboard the USS Roan.
Summary judgment was denied as to both Foster Wheeler and Crane. Crane filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. The court noted that reconsideration is appropriate only when 1) and intervening change in controlling law took place 2) new evidence is available and 3) the need to correct clear error of law is present.
Additionally before …
Continue ReadingThird Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment for Switchgear Manufacturer and Remands
Carol J. Zellner, on behalf of the estate of Clifford R. Zellner, appealed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CBS Corporation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in finding that she failed to establish a genuine dispute about whether Westinghouse Electric Corporation (predecessor to CBS Corporation) switchgear had deteriorated and exposed her now deceased husband to asbestos-containing dust. The Court of Appeals agreed, and …
Continue ReadingPump Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s Failure to Establish Sufficient Exposure
Plaintiff-Decedent William Holzworth filed suit against various defendants in the New York Supreme Court on July 9, 2012 alleging personal injuries pursuant to his diagnosis of mesothelioma allegedly caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos. Specifically, Holzworth alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products during this employment, both as a sonarman serving in the U.S. Navy between 1952 and 1955, and as a construction and project manager between 1963 and 2007. The defendants removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New …
Continue ReadingDenial of Summary Judgment of Boiler Manufacturer Affirmed on Appeal
Relying on Koulermos v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., the New York Appellate Division, First Department upheld the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. The court found that the trial court used the correct standard and that Cleaver Brooks failed to put forth evidence illustrating how it was entitled to summary judgment.
Read a full summary of the case here.…
Continue ReadingFederal Court Outlines Alternative Standard to Bare Metal Defense
William Bell alleged routine exposure to asbestos while serving as an engine man, machinery repairman, and a machinist mate in the United States Navy in the 1960s. Bell further alleged he was exposed to asbestos both while serving at sea on four ships as well as while training at a land-based Navy facility in Idaho. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2015, Bell sued various companies that manufactured a wide range of products including pumps, valves, condensers, compressors, and turbines located on the Navy vessels …
Continue ReadingDue Precaution Exception to General Rule of Non-Liability for Independent Contractors Applied to Potentially Establish Liability Against Premises Owners
The plaintiff was an industrial and commercial electrician diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. He and his wife filed a complaint alleging negligence against various defendants. The plaintiffs argued defendants were vicariously liable for the acts of their independent contractor employees (non-delegable duty doctrine), those of their own employees (respondeat superior), and as premises owners. Defendants Bremen Casting and Mastic Home Exteriors moved for summary judgment, which was partially granted on the negligence of independent contractor and premises liability claims. All parties moved for interlocutory appeal. …
Continue Reading