LATEST INSIGHTS

Other Asbestos News
Posted by:

NYCAL Justice Peter Moulton Issues New CMO

On June 20, 2017, NYCAL Justice Peter Moulton issued a new case management order (New CMO) and an accompanying case management decision (the Decision). As the Decision states, the court’s New CMO follows from a 2014 decision from prior NYCAL Justice Heitler as to whether punitive damages should continue to be deferred in NYCAL.

After negotiations to craft a new CMO failed, Judge Moulton decided to issue the New CMO without consent of the parties. The Decision acknowledges that many of the new provisions “differ[] …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Federal Officer Removal / Louisiana
Posted by:

Federal Court Defines “Other Paper” in Removal Statute § 1446

The plaintiff filed a petition for damages in the 18th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberville on February 23, 2017, and named Avondale, among others, as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged he contracted mesothelioma during his employment with Avondale caused by “dangerously high levels of toxic substances, including asbestos and asbestos containing products, in the normal course of his work.” Defendant Avondale filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court of Louisiana on April 28, 2017 under the federal …

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

Denial of Remand Based on Government Directed Actions of Airplane Manufacturing Process

The plaintiff filed a motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Joseph Thrash, alleged he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2016, and was exposed to asbestos while he worked on B-52, C-141, and C-5 airplanes in the United States Air Force from 1975 through the 1980s and while doing automotive work at various locations. The defendant, The Boeing Company, removed the case to federal court; shortly thereafter, defendants …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Louisiana / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Timely Removed Take-Home Exposure Case Remanded for Failure to Establish Colorable Federal Defense

The plaintiffs filed suit against several defendants including Avondale alleging that their decedent, Ms. Blouin, contracted mesothelioma after washing the laundry of her husband’s work clothes. Victor Blouin worked as an electrician for Avondale onboard two government vessels from April 1972 until August 1972. The plaintiffs’ claims were brought in negligence and not for strict liability. Avondale removed the case to federal court on March 28, 2017, 26 days after receiving a copy of the deposition transcript. The plaintiffs’ moved to remand.

The plaintiffs took …

Continue Reading
Asbestos Litigation Analysis
Posted by:

Madison County “Judicial Hellhole” Designation Sees Signs of Changing

Madison County, Illinois has traditionally been dubbed the “judicial hellhole” of asbestos litigation, but this designation shows signs of changing. In the first half of 2016, this venue had 29 percent of the nation’s asbestos filings. It has a history of unfair docketing practices, denial of forum non conveniens motions, and large plaintiff verdicts. Full-blown jury trials in asbestos litigation are rare for various reasons, not the least of which is the threat of multi-million dollar plaintiff verdicts, but in recent years Madison County jury …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Illinois / Pleadings Challenge
Posted by:

Lung Cancer Case Transferred After Defendants Successfully Argue Forum Non Conveniens on Appeal

Plaintiffs Irvin and Marlene Rohl brought this action against several defendants including Caterpillar and Navistar. The plaintiffs argued that Mr. Rohl’s lung cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos from brakes, gaskets, clutches, engines, and heavy duty equipment made by Caterpillar and Navistar.

At the trial level,  the defendants moved to transfer the case from Cook County to Winnebago County on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court denied the motion after a finding that the plaintiff had attended trade school in Cook County …

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

Misidentification of Brake Manufacturer’s Name Sufficient for Summary Judgment

The plaintiffs filed suit in the Superior Court of Delaware claiming that Amanda Dullinger was secondarily exposed to Defendant Abex LLC’s asbestos containing brakes while she was a child causing her to develop mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s mother, Tammy Allen, was the plaintiffs’ primary product identification witness. Ms. Allen testified that Ms. Dullinger was present when automotive work was done between 1982 and 1986. Specifically, Ms. Dullinger testified that “Apex” brakes were one of the top three brands of brakes used around Ms. Dullinger. Further, she …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Washington
Posted by:

Raw Asbestos Supplier to Transite Pipe Manufacturer Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiff Donald Noll sued a number of manufacturers, sellers, and suppliers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including Special Electric. Noll alleged that he developed malignant mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos when he worked construction in Washington between 1977 and 1979 cutting asbestos-cement pipes. Those asbestos-cement pipes were manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation, and CertainTeed received most of its asbestos from Special Electric.

Special Electric moved to dismiss on the basis that the trial court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over it because its contacts were limited to …

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

Successor Liability Decision Reversed in Oregon

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on successor liability. This suit involves the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos from his work in Portland shipyards during the 1950s. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that any of its liabilities “that may have existed prior to 1965 were transferred to another company” and, therefore, it could not be held liable for the alleged injuries suffered prior to that transfer.

The plaintiff appealed this decision arguing that the …

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

Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma Claims Barred by Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act

In a consolidated matter, three of the plaintiffs, Diane Jacobs, Katrina Masephol, and Janice Seehar (the Weyerhaeuser plaintiffs), filed claims against various defendants after developing mesothelioma.  Each had worked for Weyerhaeuser for years in close contact with asbestos.  As such, in order to get around Wisconsin’s Workers Compensation Act, Wis. Stat. § 102.03(2), which provides the “exclusive remedy against the employer” for work-related injuries, the plaintiffs argued that their asbestos-related injuries were not caused on the job, but at home and in the community, and …

Continue Reading