LATEST INSIGHTS

Case Decisions / North Carolina / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Summary Judgment Granted Where Worker’s Compensation Act Bars Plaintiff’s Claims

NORTH CAROLINA — Plaintiffs filed suit against Alcatel Lucent, as successor in interest to Western Electric and Bell Labs (Alcatel), alleging Mr. Moore developed mesothelioma as a result of his work as a cable puller from 1965-95. Alcatel moved for summary judgment, arguing that the North Carolina Worker’s Compensation Act (Act) prohibited the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs opposed summary judgment and took the position that the exception laid down by the court in Woodson applied.

The court’s analysis began with the standard for summary judgment. …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Louisiana / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Lack of Service on Forum Defendants Fails to Defeat Removal Due to Diversity Jurisdiction

LOUISIANA — The plaintiffs originally filed their petition in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, after William Leech died of mesothelioma. The plaintiffs were residents of Arizona and named numerous defendants, including three who were Louisiana residents. Nine days after the petition was filed, and before any other defendants were served, defendant Honeywell International removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, which was uncontested.

The decedent was a construction engineer who alleged asbestos exposure …

Continue Reading
Asbestos Litigation Analysis
Posted by:

Application of § 5 of Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for Releases Remains Clear as Mud

Two plaintiffs in two jurisdictions bargain for settlement in asbestos related claims. Both agree to take money in exchange for a release of all future claims. Both later develop new diseases and sue the same defendant again. Only this time, one court finds the release unenforceable and the other court dismisses the complaint. No doubt the split that exists in federal circuits applying § 5 of FELA is confusing and remains fact intensive. The two predominant rules are found in Babbitt v. Norfolk & Western …

Continue Reading
General
Posted by:

We Need Your Vote!

Attention blog readers! We are proud to announce that Asbestos Case Tracker has made it to the voting round in The Expert Institute’s “2017 Best Legal Blog Contest.”  Over the past month, this contest received thousands of nominations, which were then narrowed to the “most exciting, entertaining, and informative legal blogs online today.”

To vote for this blog, visit The Expert Institute’s contest page here and click “vote” for Asbestos Case Tracker.

Only one vote is allowed per IP address, so please try voting on …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Louisiana / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Court’s Refusal to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Dismissed Defendant Leads to Remand

LOUISIANA — The plaintiff filed this action against several defendants, including Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited (IDC), alleging he developed lung cancer from exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were responsible. Immediately after the suit was filed, the plaintiff moved to dismiss claims against IDC. A co-defendant stevedoring company filed a third party complaint for contribution and/or indemnification against IDC before the court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. IDC then removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Remand/Removal / Washington
Posted by:

Plaintiff Awarded Attorneys’ Fees and Costs for Improper Removal

WASHINGTON — Plaintiff Barbadin filed suit against defendants including Scapa Dryer Fabrics and AstenJohnsten, Inc. (defendants) alleging exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were responsible.

Scapa removed the matter on April 17, 2017.  The plaintiff quickly moved for remand and sought fees and costs. The court noted that it had previously remanded this case one time. The court concluded that Scapa had taken “inconsistent positions in an effort to keep this action in federal court” and used “untenable arguments.” The court also …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Delaware / Personal Jurisdiction
Posted by:

Magistrate Judge Recommends No Personal Jurisdiction Over Exelon Corporation in Delaware

DELAWARE — Plaintiffs Michael and Sally Harding filed claims in Delaware state court due to Michael Harding’s exposure to asbestos while working as a pipefitter for the United States Navy from 1963-67. Defendant Crane Co. removed to federal court. Defendant Exelon Corporation moved for dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction. Exelon was not a Delaware business entity and did not have a principal place of business in Delaware.  The plaintiffs did not respond to Exelon’s motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended granting this …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Missouri / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Collateral Estoppel Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment for Pump Manufacturer

MISSOURI — The plaintiffs filed suit in Missouri against multiple defendants including Buffalo Pumps, arguing that their decedent, Berj Hovsepian, developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos containing products for which the defendants were responsible. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court. Prior to filing the Missouri suit, the plaintiffs filed suit against Buffalo in Massachusetts asserting very similar allegations. Buffalo moved for summary judgment in the Massachusetts case. The motion was granted as unopposed.

In the instant matter, Buffalo moved …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Ohio / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Gasket Manufacturer’s Summary Judgment Affirmed Where Plaintiff Failed to Timely Disclose Exposure Affidavits of Fact Witness

Plaintiff Paul Heaton sued multiple defendants including an automotive gasket manufacturer and Honeywell International alleging his decedent, Robert Brawley, developed mesothelioma for which defendants were responsible.

Fact witness Michael Victor was deposed on Brawley’s use of the gasket manufacturer’s gaskets on shade tree mechanic work from 1974-2010. The deposition lasted three days. On day one of Victor’s deposition, he denied having any knowledge regarding Brawley’s work on home renovations. However, Honeywell probed on that issue later during the deposition. The plaintiff’s counsel refused to permit …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New York / Personal Jurisdiction
Posted by:

Massachusetts Corporation Granted Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs Sean Snowdale and Ryan Snowdale as Co-Executors of the Estate of Donald Kenneth Snowdale initially filed this asbestos-related suit against a number of defendants, including Barnes & Jones, Incorporated on July 6, 2015 in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL). Barnes & Jones answered and asserted the affirmative defense that NYCAL lacked personal jurisdiction over Barnes & Jones as to each and every count in the complaint.

On July 20, 2017, Barnes & Jones moved to dismiss based on lack …

Continue Reading