St. Louis City – The Gateway Arch to Mammoth Talc Verdicts

MISSOURI – The city of St. Louis, Missouri, has traditionally been an unfavorable venue for defendants, particularly for those involved in allegations of personal injury or death due to cancer caused by asbestos or talc exposure. Until recently, these two causative agents – asbestos and talc – were separate materials for purposes of personal injury or wrongful death claims. In July 2018 these two theories merged in the first trial which heard that plaintiffs’ claims of ovarian cancer were caused in part by asbestos-contaminated talc. …

Continue Reading

Case Remanded to State Court as Shipyard Defendant Fails to Show Causal

LOUISIANA — The plaintiff Terry Brady alleged that his lung cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos while working aboard U.S. Navy vessels from 1968-1989. During the plaintiff’s time aboard the USS Robert A. Owens, the ship docked at a shipyard operated by defendant Avondale Shipyards. The plaintiff filed this matter in state court, alleging that the defendants failed to warn of the hazards of asbestos, failed to provide a safe environment, and failed to employ safe procedures for handling asbestos. Avondale removed the case …

Continue Reading
judge with gavel

Clutch Manufacturer Cannot File Successive Summary Judgment Motions Based on New, Broader Expert Opinion

ALABAMA — The plaintiffs Ray and Donna Franklin alleged that Mr. Franklin’s death from asbestosis-related respiratory failure arose from his work with clutches manufactured by defendant Dana Corporation. The action, originally filed in Calhoun County Alabama, was removed to federal court, and was transferred to the MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. While in the MDL, Dana timely moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Franklin had ever been exposed to asbestos from a Dana product, or that a …

Continue Reading

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction over Successor-in-Interest Defendant Leads to Dismissal in Environmental Contamination Case

NEW YORK — The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging damages for environmental contamination within the City of Rochester. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the successors in interest to the defendants caused contamination to their property throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s. Defendant Valero Corporation (Valero) moved for dismissal of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion finding that the plaintiffs had established facts that demonstrated justification to “exercise” personal jurisdiction over Valero because “it was …

Continue Reading

Shipyard Defendants Establish a Colorable Federal Defense in Mesothelioma Case; Remand Denied

NEW JERSEY — The plaintiff filed suit on behalf of her decedent Robert Fish alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos products of the defendants. Specifically, the plaintiff believed Mr. Fish was exposed to joiner panels while working onboard the USS Savannah for New York Shipbuilding and Drydock Company. The dfendants removed the matter to federal court asserting the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiff moved to remand.

The court began its review by noting the standard for federal officer removal. …

Continue Reading

Denial of Worker’s Compensation Claim by employee of Scotts Miracle Grow Upheld on Appeal.

OHIO — The plaintiff James Bennett filed a worker’s compensation claim for his development of “pleural plaque” disease he attributed to asbestos exposure while working for Scotts Miracle Grow (Scotts). Bennett began receiving benefits for his claim but then filed for additional payments for his recent “asbestosis” diagnosis. The hearing officer denied his claim for asbestosis finding that the plaintiff had not established the disease process. The plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the parties did not dispute that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos. Rather, …

Continue Reading

Claims Against Manville Insurer Permitted to Proceed For Violation of Due Process

NEW YORK — The plaintiff, Salvador Parra, developed asbestosis after working as an insulator in the 1960s and 1970s. He filed suit in 2009 in Mississippi against numerous Manville-related entities, including Marsh USA, Inc., a Manville insurer. In 1986, Marsh contributed $29.75M to the Manville Trust in exchange for a release of all claims “arising out of or relating to services” performed by Marsh for Manville or “in connection with insurance policies issued to” Manville, and an injunction funneling all future such claims into the …

Continue Reading

Remand Affirmed on Appeal Due to Lack of Causal Connection to Support Removal Under Federal Officer Statute

The family of Tyrone Melancon filed suit in Louisiana state court alleging that his development of mesothelioma and subsequent death were caused by his exposure to asbestos at the Huntington Ingalls shipyard where he was employed from 1965 to 1979. The plaintiffs alleged that Huntington Ingalls negligently failed to warn Tyrone Melancon of the dangers of asbestos and failed to implement safety procedures for handling asbestos. Huntington Ingalls removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, alleging that removal was permissible …

Continue Reading

Defendants’ Knowledge of Asbestos Not Required to Survive Motion to Dismiss

The United States District Court, District of Montana, issued identical decisions in three with the following similarly situated plaintiffs (collectively as “plaintiffs” ) and defendant BNSF Railway Company (BNSF):

  • Lloyd E. Underwood (CV-17-83-GF-BMM-JTJ);
  • Carrie Sue Murphy-Fauth (CV-17-79-GF-BMM-JTJ);
  • Consuela Deason, as Personal Representative for the Estate of James E. Deason (CV-17-76-GF-BMM-JTJ).

In each case, BNSF filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (among other arguments).  Here, BNSF argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege that BNSF owed the plaintiffs a duty of …

Continue Reading

New Jersey Talc Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss New York Case With Exposure In Virginia Granted

NEW YORK — The plaintiffs sued Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. (JJCI), alleging that Mrs. Hammock’s exposure to asbestos-containing J&J baby powder caused her to develop mesothelioma. Mrs. Hammock was a Virginia resident her entire life, and all of her alleged exposure took place in Virginia.  

JJCI is the sole entity responsible for manufacturing and distributing J&J baby powder during the subject time period. JJCI is a New Jersey Corporation  with its principal place of business in New Jersey. JJCI

Continue Reading