The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that from 1956 to 1990, he was employed by the defendant and “spent a significant portion of that time ‘dealing with asbestos, fiber glass products and other hazardous products.’” The three causes of action were for: (1) premises liability; (2) negligence; and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant removed the case to the Northern District of California and then moved to dismiss it on the grounds that California’s Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive …Continue Reading
The plaintiff, George Holland, brought this action on behalf of the decedent, Owen Holland, alleging exposure to asbestos from his work at Monsanto Chemical Plant from 1967–2004. From 1974-2002, the decedent worked with external components of pumps and valves manufactured by Goulds and Crane. He also would sweep packing from around the pumps and fibers from around the valves. Both Goulds and Crane moved for—and were denied—summary judgment. Defendant Fluor Daniel preformed construction and maintenance work at Monsanto from 1967-1998. Its motion for summary judgment …Continue Reading
The decedent, a lifetime electrician, passed away in 2014 of lung cancer. Prior to passing, he filed a lawsuit for asbestos exposure against numerous manufacturers. Six defendants filed motions for summary judgment arguing lack of exposure — Rockwell Automation (Allen-Bradley); BW/IP International (Byron Jackson); Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo); Gardner Denver; Schneider Electric (Square D); and Warren Pumps. The court granted all motions, except that of Allen-Bradley.
The decedent claimed exposure to Warren pumps while serving as a civilian employee on board the U.S.S. Constellation. …Continue Reading
In this case, the plaintiff Melvin Desin, an electrician, alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while working at various job sites in the 1960s and early 1970s, including on seven or eight occasions in the vicinity of painters employed by defendant Zelinsky, a painting contractor. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he worked in close proximity to the Zelinsky workers, who patched and sanded walls and joint compound in his presence. However, the plaintiff could not identify the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier …Continue Reading
In this case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, John DePree, was exposed to asbestos from various products, including the use of Bondo auto body filler in the 1970s to repair dents in his cars. BASF Catalysts, LLC moved for, and was granted, summary judgment based on its argument that the plaintiffs could not offer more than a mere possibility of exposure to asbestos from a BASF product since any asbestos in the Bondo talc was an impurity and not an intended ingredient. The plaintiffs …Continue Reading
In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Robert Hanson, filed a complaint in 2010 against various defendants, including “Doe” defendants, alleging asbestos exposure caused his asbestosis. In 2012, the plaintiff substituted Collins Electrical Company for one of the Doe defendants. In 2013, Collins moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of asbestosis or any asbestos-related injury. While the motion was pending, the plaintiff was allowed to file a first amended complaint, which removed any reference to asbestosis and claimed …Continue Reading
After the plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging strict liability and negligence due to asbestos exposure from his work insulating and maintaining boilers. It was transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL, then remanded back to Wisconsin federal court. Defendant Trane U.S., Inc. then moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) it did not assume the liabilities of American Standard, and (2) American Standard did not manufacture, distribute or specify the asbestos materials that caused decedent’s injuries. The court granted the motion …Continue Reading
In a February 22, 2016 decision, the Honorable Peter H. Moulton, J.S.C. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff-decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos during a lengthy career as a longshoreman on at certain New York City piers. During the pertinent period, the moving defendant was alleged to be the manufacturer of two asbestos-containing products (i.e., a pelletized product and a phenolic molding compound). The plaintiff …Continue Reading
In this case, it was claimed that the decedent, Michael O’Leary, was exposed to asbestos while working as a rigger at the Tosco Refinery in the 1970s to late 1980s near employees from the defendant, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., who were sweeping up insulation off the floor in his vicinity. The trial court precluded the opinion that the insulation contained asbestos as being speculative from the plaintiff’s expert, Charles Ay, and granted summary judgment to Dillingham.
On appeal, the court found the expert’s opinion to …Continue Reading
In this decision, there were eight separate actions against Weyerhaeuser Company involving private and public nuisance claims brought by, or on the behalf of, former employees of Weyerhaeuser for asbestos-related injuries based on non-occupational exposure. Weyerhaeuser used asbestos in its mineral core plant to manufacture a door core. The plaintiffs non-occupational exposure claims were based on their living, or being, in close proximity to the plant. Weyerhaeuser “moved to strike plaintiffs’ experts and for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs are unable to prove injuries beyond …Continue Reading