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 ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Bare Metal Defense Rebuts Plaintiffs’ Causation Argument for Majority of Industrial Equipment Manufactures
Patricia Carroll, as special administrator of Ronald Carroll’s estate, sued numerous manufacturers of industrial equipment in which asbestos replacement parts were used, manufacturers of asbestos, or both in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The claims against the defendants arise from the time Mr. Carroll spent working at Wisconsin Power & Light (WP&L) from 1959 to 1974. Mr. Carroll worked in a variety of different jobs WP&L’s plants during that period of time, including plant helper, auxiliary equipment operator, and boiler operator.…
Continue ReadingDefendants’ Motion in Limine Denied on Multiple Issues; Including Regulatory Materials, Past Conduct, MAS Studies and Expert Testimony Based on Animal Studies
The plaintiff filed this action against several defendants alleging his asbestos related disease was caused by products for which the defendants were liable. Mr. Evans worked as a cable puller for Western Electric from 1946-48, as a grounds man and lineman for Queens Gas and Electric from 1948-52, as an HVAC worker for multiple employers from 1952-63 and again in a mechanic and supervisory role from 1965-68 at residential and commercial sites. He also claimed potential bystander exposure from residential jobs including roofing, flooring, ceiling, …
Continue ReadingRoofing Cement Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment Based on Insufficient Evidence of Exposure
Plaintiffs Henry Stowers and his wife Laura Stowers filed suit in the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, alleging that Henry Stowers was exposed to asbestos from various defendants’ products which caused his lung cancer. Stowers, as the plaintiffs’ sole product identification witness, testified that between 1985-87, Stowers was a self-employed roofer. His work included building cabinets and removing/placing old shingles on roofs with new ones. Stowers stated that the new shingles were made by Owens-Corning and Heritage but he was aware of the …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Grants Summary Judgment on Failure to Warn Claims
Plaintiff Gail Hart, executor of the estate of the decedent Alva Coykendall (the plaintiff), filed suit alleging that her husband worked with a substantial amount of asbestos-containing brake and clutch friction materials manufactured by various defendants. Prior to his death, Coykendall was deposed and testified that he did work as an uncertified mechanic from approximately 1972 through 2014. Coykendall further specified he performed work on brakes and clutches which included exposure to brake dust when working on vehicles that did not require a full brake …
Continue ReadingRequired Use of Asbestos Products for Proper Functioning of Steam Turbines Created Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Duty to Warn
The decedent served in the Navy from 1943-46 and served as a machinist on the USS George K. MacKenzie during World War II. After the war, he joined the Military Sea Transportation Service and worked as an engineer until 1952. His representatives filed a wrongful death lawsuit after he died from mesothelioma, suing, among others, General Electric. The trial court granted GE’s motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court reversed.
GE designed, manufactured, and supplied the steam turbines that were on board the decedent’s …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Assertion of the Mere Possibility of Exposure Insufficient to Create a Triable Issue of Fact for Summary Judgment
The plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants, including Moore Drydock, alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of his work onboard the USS Carter Hall. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant Moore Drydock built the USS Carter Hall. Specific sources of exposures alleged by the plaintiff included gaskets, packing, and pipe insulation.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that no issue of fact existed. The plaintiff opposed and took the position that the declaration of its insulation expert, Charles Ay, offered the fact that …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate’s Recommendation for Granting Summary Judgment Overruled
The plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate’s recommendation for granting summary judgment, arguing that his expert’s affidavit was enough to create an issue as to material fact.
The court began its analysis and stated that its review of objections to a magistrate’s decision are de novo. The issue at heart was the plaintiff’s reliance on the Boyd case to support his claim that the affidavit of his expert, Captain Bulger, established an issue of fact. The court found that the affidavit only “bolstered” was had …
Continue ReadingPlaintiffs’ Motion for Remand Granted After Defendant Removes on Federal Officer; Sanctions Denied
The plaintiffs filed this action against multiple defendants including Foster Wheeler for Mr. Hukkanen’s alleged development of mesothelioma after serving as a machinist onboard the USS Somers and USS Walke from 1960 through 1968.
Foster Wheeler removed the case, arguing that it was acting under an officer or agency of the United States. Foster Wheeler quickly moved for remand claiming that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs specifically waived claims sounded in military contractors immunity defense. Foster Wheeler took the position that …
Continue ReadingPlaintiffs Survive Summary Judgment as to Turbine and Valve Defendants; Fail to Establish Exposure to Other Equipment Defendant
The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff, Paul Paquin, had not established that he was exposed to any asbestos containing product for which the defendants were responsible. The court launched into its analysis with the standard for summary judgment and stated that summary judgment is not appropriate unless “the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment.” The parties disputed whether maritime …
Continue Reading