The Evans matter involved an 87 year deceased mesothelioma claimant. All defendants resolved prior to trial with the exception of Burnham Corporation. After a 2 ½ week trial before Judge Moulton, the jury returned a defense verdict for Burnham, finding that there was exposure to asbestos from a Burnham product, and that Burnham was negligent, but that Burnham’s negligence was not a substantial contributing factor to Mr. Evan’s mesothelioma.…
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
$3M Judgment Affirmed Finding Sufficient Evidence to Show Specific Causation Against Cement Supplier
On March 22, 2017, in the Supreme Court of New York, Oneida County, a $3M judgment was awarded to plaintiff Nicholas Dominick for injuries sustained due to exposure to asbestos associated with the defendants’ products. The defendants appealed from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from products supplied by the defendants, that they failed to exercise reasonable care by not providing a warning about the hazards of exposure to asbestos with respect to their products, and that …
Continue ReadingEmployer Found to Have Duty to Prevent Reasonably Foreseeable Injuries in Take-Home Exposure Case
Barbara Bobo was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2011. Her husband, James Bobo, worked for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from 1975-1997 as a laborer and labor foreman, primarily at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Alabama. Mr. Bobo was previously diagnosed with asbestos-induced lung cancer but passed away from a heart attack in 1997. Mrs. Bobo passed away in 2013 from mesothelioma, and prior to her death, she filed a lawsuit against TVA and eight other defendants alleging “take-home” asbestos exposure, from …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Denied with Respect to Two Defendants
The plaintiff filed for voluntary dismissal in order to re-file in the State of Pennsylvania. Various defendants had filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Two defendants, Evenheat Kiln and Sargent Art, objected to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with respect to Evenheat and Sargent.
The case had progressed through the discovery phase, and the plaintiff was deposed over six days. Evenheat never contested jurisdiction in Rhode Island. After discovery, both Evenheat and …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Court Denies Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Causation Experts
The court issued further rulings in a case previously reported in Asbestos Case Tracker on April 12, 2017. This case involved plaintiff Frederick Evans’ alleged exposure to asbestos-containing dust from his work as an HVAC mechanic from 1955-59. Although the defendants submitted a joint omnibus motion in limine, the only defendant remaining at trial was Burnham LLC. Here, the motion in limine to exclude the causation opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Carl Brodkin and Dr. John Maddox was denied.
Burnham argued the plaintiffs’ causation …
Continue ReadingUpon Reconsideration, Finding of Jurisdiction Reversed Due to Missouri Supreme Court Ruling in State ex rel. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Dolan
The plaintiffs were the special representative of the decedent, Berj Hovsepian, a civilian employee of the Navy from 1958-64 who died of mesothelioma. Originally filed in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, it was removed to federal court where defendant CBS Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After the motion was denied, CBS moved to reconsider due to a change in controlling law. The court reconsidered and reversed its ruling, holding no personal jurisdiction existed over CBS.
Motions to reconsider …
Continue ReadingAutomotive Manufacturer Had No Duty to Warn Regarding Third Party Replacement Parts
The plaintiffs alleged Ford Motor Company was negligent in failing to warn decedent of the dangers posed by servicing asbestos brake parts in Ford vehicles. The decedent was a mechanic who died of mesothelioma. Ford moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ford had no duty to warn about asbestos replacement brake parts made by third parties, and the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that decedent was exposed to Ford asbestos brake parts. The trial court ruled that Ford had no duty to warn about third …
Continue ReadingBoiler Manufacturer Granted New Trial Due to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Comments in Closing Arguments
Defendant Weil McLain appealed the jury’s award of damages and punitive damages to plaintiffs to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The appeal stems from the death of Larry Kinseth as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos containing products. Mr. Kinseth worked in the heating and plumbing industry beginning in 1957. As part of his work, he tore out old boilers and installed new boilers, both in residential and commercial applications. At the time, Mr. Kinseth was working in the heating and plumbing industry, …
Continue ReadingSeattle Jury Renders Enormous Verdict Against NAPA
A Seattle, Washington jury reached a unanimous verdict against NAPA/Genuine parts after 5.5 hours of deliberation. The plaintiffs alleged the decedent, Doy Coogan, developed peritoneal mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from brake shoes, bulk brake bands, gaskets, packing, and clutches, distributed and sold by NAPA. Although punitive damages were not requested, the jury’s verdict exceeded $80 million. The jury applied pre-1981 law in awarding a total of $81.5 million for the plaintiffs. The decedent Doy Coogan was awarded $30 million; his wife of four years, …
Continue ReadingNorth Dakota Joins States Enacting Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Transparency Legislation
On April 14, 2017, North Dakota became the third state this year to enact legislation mandating disclosure of asbestos bankruptcy trust claims. The new legislation requires plaintiffs to provide, within thirty days after an asbestos action is filed, a sworn statement from both plaintiff and counsel stating that all asbestos trust claims have been made. Plaintiffs must also provide parties with all trust claim materials, which are admissible in evidence. Supplementation is required, and failure to comply may result in dismissal of the case by …
Continue Reading