In this federal court case, the court’s jurisdiction was based solely on the plaintiff’s assertion of maritime jurisdiction as set forth in in his fourth amended complaint. The plaintiff brought claims against 54 defendants that manufactured asbestos-containing products that the decedent, Christopher Curtis, was allegedly exposed to in three different situations: From 1955-58 while he served in the Navy, while employed as an electrician for 40 years, and while performing maintenance on his automobiles. The plaintiff settled against many of the 54 defendants, and other …
Continue ReadingCategory: Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Failure to List Claims in Bankruptcy Petition Not Enough to Warrant Judicial Estoppel of Such Claims
In 2000, the plaintiff brought claims for non-malignant asbestos-related diseases, including ship owners represented by Thompson Hine LLP. In 2004, the plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, without listing his asbestos claims as assets. Three months later the bankruptcy case was closed. In 2007, the plaintiff brought claims for a malignant asbestos-related disease; in 2011 the MDL reinstated asbestos actions, of which this case was a part. The defendant ship owners moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) the non-malignancy claims were barred by judicial estoppel because …
Continue ReadingSeveral Defendants Not Named in Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Answers Move for Summary Judgment With Various Results
In this case, the plaintiff, Mark Denison, claimed exposure to asbestos from numerous products while working at his father’s hardware store from 1964-65 to 1969, Dunkirk Radiator from 1972 to 1987, and from his own automotive repair business from 1980 to the early 1990s. Defendants Bird, Inc., Euclid-Hitachi Heavy Equipment, Inc., F.E. Myers, Oshkosh Corporation, and WT/HRC Corporation all moved for summary judgment.
In its ruling, the court highlighted that none of the moving defendants were identified in the plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories. The court …
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Adopts Report and Recommendation of Magistrate in Both Granting and Denying Summary Judgment to Various Defendants
The district court reviewed the report and recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, which recommended granting and denying summary judgment to various defendants. The court applied maritime law in granting summary judgment to Electrolux, ABB, Velan Valve, GE, CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Owens-Illinois, and denying summary judgment to Buffalo, Ingersoll-Rand (denied in part), Aurora, IMO, and Warren (denied in part). The court granted summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages to Ingersoll Rand and Warren, because the plaintiff failed to establish same.
The court …
Continue ReadingGasket Manufacturers’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Motion to Change Venue Denied in Naval Exposure Case
In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos in various products through the course of his employment in the 1960s and 1970s. He specifically alleged asbestos exposure from working with gaskets manufactured by Excelsior Packing & Gasket Company and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company while serving in the Navy from 1970 to 1975 aboard the U.S.S. Surfbird and U.S.S. Hector. On both ships, the plaintiff’s duties included replacing gaskets on pumps, valves, and boilers. He testified to changing flange gaskets …
Continue ReadingPost-Bankruptcy Petition Malignancy Claim Not “Sufficiently Rooted” in Pre-Bankruptcy Past to Constitute Property of the Estate
In a follow-up to cases previously reported on in ACT, the plaintiffs in this case, Administrators of the Estate of Bjorn Dahl, alleged that the decedent, Mr. Dahl, was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships. The plaintiffs assert that the decedent developed two asbestos-related illnesses, a non-malignancy injury dating back to 1995 and a malignancy claim arising in 1997, as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those ships. In 1995, Mr. Dahl brought claims for non-malignant asbestos-related disease. Mr. Dahl’s …
Continue ReadingValve Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment Under Maritime Law Where it May Have Recommended, But Did Not Provide, Asbestos-Containing Flange Gaskets
In this federal court case, it is alleged that the decedent, Thomas Dandridge, was exposed to asbestos while working as a pipefitter and coppersmith at the Charleston Naval Shipyard from 1965 to 1976. It was claimed that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from a variety of products, including flange gaskets used to link Crane Co. valves to pipe lines. The case was originally brought in the court of common pleas in Charleston County and was later removed federal court, where Crane moved for summary …
Continue ReadingTwo Rulings From MDL Allow Previously Dismissed Asbestos Claims to Proceed Against Various Ship Owners Despite Previous Dismissed Actions Not Listed as Assets in Bankruptcy
In a follow-up to six cases previously reported on in ACT, two more cases were decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both cases had started in the Northern District of Ohio, and were transferred to the MDL 875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In both cases, the plaintiffs brought claims against various ship owners represented by Thompson Hine LLP, and all alleged asbestos exposure while working on ships. All cases were administratively dismissed; after dismissal, the plaintiffs …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Awarded to Pump Manufacturer for Alleged Exposure to Pump Component Parts Manufactured by Third-Parties
In Holzworth v. Alfa Laval, et al. 12-CV-06088 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016), Southern District of New York Judge John Keenan granted defendant Ingersoll-Rand’s summary judgment motion arising out of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos aboard the U.S.S. Sheldrake. The plaintiff’s decedent had testified that he was exposed to pumps aboard the ship as a bystander and by cleaning them. He did not specifically describe their pumps’ composition, but claimed that he scraped asbestos-containing packing from the jackets. He further testified that many of the …
Continue ReadingForeseeability of Injury Nor a Special Relationship Existed to Create a Duty in Secondary Exposure Case
The plaintiff contracted mesothelioma and sued various defendants for asbestos exposure allegedly sustained as a child. Kuettel performed industrial and commercial insulation contracting work; the plaintiff’s father worked for Kuettel from 1961-65 and again from 1974-79. Kuettel moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn the plaintiff because there was no special relationship between it and the plaintiff, and because it did not manufacture any of the asbestos-containing products it supplied and installed. The district court granted the motion because there was …
Continue Reading