Consideration of Decedent’s Specific Exposure History Renders Testimony of Dr. Jacqueline Moline Reliable

Decedent Gerald Hoffeditz alleged asbestos exposure from automotive and heavy equipment repair on various vehicles, including large military trucks while working at the Letterkenny Army Depot. He subsequently passed away from mesothelioma. Various defendants moved to exclude the evidence and testimony put forth by the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Jacqueline Moline. The court denied this motion.

For expert testimony to be admitted, the proffered witness must: (1) be qualified; (2) testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge (reliability), and (3) assist the trier of …

Continue Reading

Remand Granted Where Defendant Failed to Show Government Exercised Control Over Warnings and Safety

Plaintiff Robert Templet, Sr. alleged asbestos exposure during his work for defendant Avondale Industries, Inc. The plaintiff was employed by Avondale from 1968-2002, and later developed malignant pleural mesothelioma. Defendants Avondale and Lamorak Insurance Company removed to federal court due to the federal officer removal statute. The plaintiff moved to remand. The court granted the motion and remanded this case back to the State of Louisiana.

Avondale based its removal on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony wherein he testified that they worked on Navy Destroyer Escorts …

Continue Reading

Compressor Manufacturer’s Appeal Denied Based on Finding of Substantial Contribution to Decedent’s Disease

Myra Williams died on August 8, 2013 of complications from malignant mesothelioma. Plaintiff Jimmy Smith, along with his four children, filed suit against several defendants alleging that their products cause Myra’s mesothelioma. Smith alleged that he was exposed to asbestos fibers while working at the Placid Oil Facility in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Smith unknowingly brought fibers and dust home on his clothing after each day of work. Myra would handle and wash Jimmy’s clothing, and sustained what is commonly referred to as bystander asbestos exposure. Ingersoll–Rand …

Continue Reading

Brake and Talc Supplier Successfully Move to Dismiss on Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Following up on prior ACT posts as to the Hodjera suit out of the Western District of Washington, the court granted motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Honeywell International  and Imerys Talc America Inc. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court reiterated that due process requires a district court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to adjudicate a claim against it. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 753 (2014).  Further, the plaintiffs …

Continue Reading

Various Product Manufacturers Granted Summary Judgment Under Maritime and Oregon Law

Harold and Judy Haynes filed this asbestos related personal injury action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on June 3, 2016, asserting claims arising from Mr. Haynes’ alleged harmful exposure to asbestos. Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to U.S. District Court in Delaware on July 15, 2016. Defendants Aurora, Warren Pumps, Pfizer, FMC, Honeywell, BorgWarner, and Air & Liquid filed motions for summary judgment on March 24, 2017.The plaintiffs did not respond to these motions. Counsel for the defendants sent letters to …

Continue Reading

Channeling Injunction Prohibits General Motor’s Wrongful Death Suit for Contribution against the Manville Trust

General Motors (GM) filed suit against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (Manville) seeking a declaratory order that its state suit against Manville was not barred by the longstanding “Channeling Injunction” of the Manville Corporation’s chapter 11 reorganization (the Plan) and subsequent order confirming the same.

Separate from the declaratory complaint, GM filed suit in Ohio state court against the estate of Bobby Bolen and multiple asbestos defendants including Manville. GM alleged the defendants were jointly and severally liable to GM as it had subrogated …

Continue Reading

Each and Every Exposure Theory Insufficient to Prove Specific Causation in South Carolina Federal Court

This decision addresses a similar issue from two different cases and therefore was decided within the same order. Both sets of plaintiffs offered the opinions of Carlos Bedrossian, MD to provide evidence of specific causation.

For a brief factual background, plaintiff John E. Haskins served in the U.S. Navy as a fireman aboard the USS Coney. Haskins was diagnosed with mesothelioma in November of 2014 allegedly caused by his cumulative exposure to asbestos from working with and around asbestos-containing products manufactured or distributed by the …

Continue Reading

Generic Expert Report Insufficient to Satisfy Summary Judgment Causation Standard

Plaintiff James Blair as the administer of the estate of Walter Godfrey, Jr. filed suit against defendant Cleaver-Brooks in the Superior Court of Delaware claiming that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the defendant’s boilers and a result, was diagnosed and ultimately passed away from lung cancer. As the sole product identification witness, Walter Godfrey, Jr. testified to working with Cleaver-Brooks boilers at various locations between 1977 and 2013 while employed with Connecticut Boiler Repair.

The defendant moved for summary judgment and argued, among …

Continue Reading

Appellate Division Grants Temporary Stay on NYCAL CMO

On July 19, 2017, Justice Ellen Gesmer of the Appellate Division, First Department generally granted various NYCAL defendants’ order to show cause seeking a temporary stay of the implementation of a new NYCAL Case Management Order (CMO), which was issued by prior NYCAL Justice Peter Moulton. The order provides for a minor exception to the temporary stay. The order includes a briefing schedule for the motion seeking a stay of the New CMO during the pendency of the NYCAL defendants’ appeal from the NYCAL CMO …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Challenge Denied as Expert Disclaims Causation Expertise

Plaintiffs filed their Daubert challenge seeking exclusion of Georgia Pacific’s Certified Industrial Hygienist, Donald Marano. Plaintiff argued that Mr. Marano would offer qualitative and quantitative exposures of Plaintiff along with the risk and causation of Mr. Arbogast’s mesothelioma. Georgia Pacific countered with the position that Mr. Marano has “repeatedly disclaimed any expertise on causation and has confined his opinion to explaining the risk assessments performed by various agencies and organizations and offering his risk assessment opinion based on the analysis that his profession is trained …

Continue Reading