The decedent died of mesothelioma; prior to his passing he filed a lawsuit in state court alleging exposure to asbestos while a production shift supervisor during his employment at a paper mill in Georgia. One defendant removed, and the action was transferred to MDL 875. Defendant Crane Co. filed for summary judgment, which was granted in part by the MDL court; however, it remanded to the Northern District of Georgia to determine whether the bare metal defense was available under Georgia law. Crane then moved …
Continue ReadingCategory: Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment Granted to Cleaver Brooks Because Vague Witness Testimony Not Enough to Establish Exposure
The decedent in this case, Michael Walashek, alleged exposure to asbestos from various products, including Cleaver-Brooks boilers, during the course of his work for various entities between 1967 and 1986. The exposure allegedly caused him to “suffer severe and permanent injury and ultimately death.” The plaintiff, Gail Walashek, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and other entities alleging claims of negligence and strict liability in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony Precluded and Summary Judgment Granted Where Expert Disclosure Was Untimely, the Expert Opinion Lacked Sufficient Factual Basis, and Plaintiff’s Claims Were Legally Insufficient on Causation
In this case, the plaintiff sued numerous manufacturers and distributors of products allegedly containing asbestos, including Defendant General Electric Company (GE), following his diagnosis of mesothelioma.
The plaintiff designated Dr. Robert Vance, an industrial hygienist, to testify regarding the sources of the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure. As to GE, Dr. Vance noted in his report that the plaintiff claimed to have worked with GE generators and asbestos-braided wiring at various job sites. Dr. Vance did not offer an opinion in his report regarding the plaintiff’s alleged …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment in Favor of the U.S. Government Reversed as Finder of Fact Could Reasonably Conclude Naval Facility Asbestos Exposure was Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma
Plaintiff Roger Botts, a former deliveryman who developed mesothelioma after being around work which exposed him to asbestos, including the removal, installation, and fabrication of asbestos on board ships and around the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard between 1970 and 1976, sued the United States Government in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The government subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiffs had not proven causation. In granting summary judgment, the District Court found that the plaintiffs failed …
Continue ReadingTrial Court Denies Mechanical Contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment Opposed by Co-Defendants
The plaintiff sued the defendants for his mesothelioma allegedly contracted from his work at the Northpoint Power Station in Northport, Long Island. Mechanical contractor, O’Connor, moved for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims and cross claims. The motion was opposed by co-defendants National Grid and National Grid USA Service Company.
O’Connor maintained that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiff did not identify O’Connor in his Interrogatories and deposition testimony. However, the co-defendants opposed, stating that their affidavits submitted create a sufficient issue of …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appeals Court Applies “Inevitable Use” and Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment as to Brake Arcing Defendant
The appellant brought an appeal on behalf of her late husband, Frank Rondon, arguing that the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment as to her claims for strict liability and negligence. Frank Rondon worked as a mechanic using defendant Hennessy’s (Ammco Tools) brake arcing machines designed to grind asbestos brake shoes.
Hennessy moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not manufacturer, distribute, or design asbestos containing products. Hennessy relied upon expert declarations that non-asbestos brake show linings were available in the …
Continue ReadingU.S. District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on Grant of Summary Judgment as to Daubert Challenge, Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity, and Public Nuisance Claim
The plaintiffs brought a motion for reconsideration for the court’s decision to grant partial summary judgment as to the defendant Weyerhauser’s motion as to its Daubert challenge, The plaintiffs’ claims for Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity and public nuisance claim.
The court stated that Rule 56 does not provide for a motion for reconsideration but permits a motion to alter judgment. However, the standard requires the movant to show a “manifest error” in judgment or that newly discovered evidence is available. The court noted that the rule …
Continue ReadingFourth Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment on Substantial Factor Causation and Affirms Denial of Remand Based on Federal Officer Jurisdiction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in two consolidated appeals upholding the granting of summary judgment to defendants CBS Corporation, General Electric Corporation (GE), MCIC (local insulation contractor), Paramount Packing & Rubber Company, Phelps Packing & Rubber Company, SB Decking, Inc., Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (local insulation contractor), and Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation. The two consolidated cases involved alleged exposures to dust asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied, or installed by the defendants at Baltimore, Maryland area shipyards.
On appeal, …
Continue ReadingIssue of Foreseeable Duty to be Determined by a Jury in Take-Home Exposure Case Against Plant Where Decedent’s Husband Worked
The plaintiffs’ decedent, Elizabeth Sutherland, alleged take-home exposure to asbestos from her first husband’s work clothes. The plaintiff’s first husband, James “Huey” Chustz, worked as an electrician helper for Hershel Leonard Jr. Electric Company from 1964-72. At minimum, he spent 250 days at the sugar mill Alma Plantation, LLC, where he would become covered in dust from coming into contact with pipes. After dismissal of various parties and claims, the only claim remaining against Alma was if it owed a foreseeable duty to the decedent. …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment in Favor of Supplier of Insulation Affirmed on Strict Liability, But Reversed on Failure to Warn
In this case it is alleged that the decedent, Ian Blandford, was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter from 1955 to 1998. The Edward R. Hart Company (Hart) moved for and was granted summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal the court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on strict product liability, but reversed the granting of summary judgment on the failure to warn claim. Regarding strict product liability, the court pointed out that Hart was a supplier of asbestos insulation, …
Continue Reading