Bill Proposed in Pennsylvania House Seeks to Add Fairness and Transparency to Asbestos Actions

On June 30, 2015, Rep. Warren Kampf introduced a bill in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives titled as the “Fairness in Claims and Transparency (FaCT) Act.”

The purposes are listed as providing transparency of claims made against bankruptcy trusts and in the tort system, to facilitate fair and appropriate compensation to plaintiffs while rationally allocating responsibility, to preserve the resources of defendants involved to help promote adequate recoveries for deserving plaintiffs, and to ensure that liabilities properly borne by bankruptcy trusts are not imposed upon …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Expert Industrial Hygienist Found to Be Qualified to Offer Testimony on Non-Specific Levels of Asbestos Exposure

In this federal court case, the decedent, Sally Gros Vedros, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from laundering her father’s work clothes during the time he worked as a welder at the Avondale shipyard from 1943 to 1976 and from her own work at Avondale in the purchasing department from 1960 to 1963. The defendant, Bayer CropScience, Inc., which was the successor to several companies that formerly were known as Amchem Company, moved to preclude plaintiff’s industrial hygienist, Frank Parker, III, from testifying, …

Continue Reading

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint to Reflect Only Remaining Parties

In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy from 1957 to 1960 aboard the USS Jonas Ingram and the USS Clarence Bronson, as well as from “other sites of asbestos exposure from approximately 1956 to 1970.” In November 2013, eight defendants moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiff only opposed the motions by Ford Motor Company and Honeywell International, Inc. Following the granting of summary judgment to all of the defendants with unopposed motions, the plaintiff moved …

Continue Reading

California Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Expert Opinion and Grants Railroad Summary Judgment Under FELA on Lack of Causation

In this California case, the decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos while working for a railroad as a switchman, conductor, and brakeman, later developing mesothelioma. Specifically, the decedent claimed exposure was from changing railcar brake shoes, being in the vicinity of insulation removal from refrigerator cars, and staying in a boarding house run by the railroad that had insulation-covered pipes in the room where he slept. The defendant railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing “that plaintiffs were required but failed to prove negligence under FELA, …

Continue Reading

General Electric Granted Summary Judgment on the Bare Metal Defense Under Maritime Law

The plaintiff commenced this action by claiming he was exposed to insulation on General Electric products while in the U.S. Navy. GE moved for summary judgment on three grounds: the government contractor defense, the bare metal defense under maritime law, and on no evidence of GE actually furnishing the component parts. The court ruled that maritime law — rather than New Jersey law — governed the case.

The court only addressed the bare metal defense, ruling that GE was entitled to summary judgment: “The Court …

Continue Reading

California Appellate Court Reverses Dismissal of Two Cases Where Equipment Was Used in Connection With Asbestos Brake Linings

In the first California case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. He had previously worked as an auto mechanic in New York City and Los Angeles, during which he purchased an AMMCO machine equipped with a dust collection system. This machine was “an ‘arcing’ machine designed to grind drum brake linings for cars and light passenger trucks with standard sized brake shoes. From the early 1950’s to the 1980’s, the great majority of such drum brake linings contained asbestos. Because the AMMCO machines …

Continue Reading

Valve Manufacturer’s Appeal on Summary Judgment Denied on Foreseeable Use of Asbestos-Containing Component Parts

In this case, it is alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos gaskets and packing in valves manufactured by Crane Co., while working at an industrial plant from 1956 to 1982. Crane appealed from the lower court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and the Fourth Department affirmed the decision.

In its appeal, Crane alleged that it could not be liable for failure to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos, since it did not produce or sell the asbestos-containing component parts. The …

Continue Reading

Federal Court Exercises Supplemental Jurisdiction in Denying Plaintiff’s Request to Remand

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs sought to remand the case back to state court after settling with federal defendants GE and CBS Corporation, who originally removed the case pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C 1442(a)(1). The plaintiffs sought removal, asking the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims against John Crane. The plaintiffs also reasserted their challenges to the court’s original jurisdiction, but since those issues had already been addressed, only the new argument was …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Granted Remand of Shipyard’s Removal to Federal Court

In this federal court case, the plaintiff alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos while he was an employee of Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (previously known as Avondale shipyards) in various positions from 1948 through 1996. The defendants removed the case, claiming the federal court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The defendants specifically claimed that federal inspectors from military agencies maintained a constant presence at the shipyard during the construction of vessels for the Navy and Coast Guard …

Continue Reading

Valve Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment on Appeal Because Salvage/Demolition Not Foreseeable Use of Product

In this NYCAL case, the plaintiff alleged that his development of peritoneal mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to asbestos in the 1980s from dismantling and salvaging scrap metal from steam systems in vacant buildings. The lower court denied the motion for summary judgment by the defendant, valve manufacturer Powell Company. On appeal, the appellate division addressed whether dismantling constitutes a reasonably foreseeable use of a product and reversed the lower court’s decision.

In its ruling, the court looked at rulings in other jurisdictions …

Continue Reading