Plaintiffs Richard Zanowick and Joan Clark-Zanowick filed suit in state court in July 2014. The defendants timely removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds a month later. With the case now in federal court, Richard Zanowick passed away on October 12, 2014. The plaintiffs filed and electronically served a notice of his death on November 17, 2014. Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), the plaintiffs were required to file a motion to substitute a new party for Richard Zanowick within 90 days, or in this …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Is an Argument Challenging Precedent Bad Faith? Pennsylvania Bad Faith Ruling in Asbestos Coverage Case Raises Important Question
Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the J.H. France case has dictated that the continuous trigger rule be applied to determine what insurance policies are triggered for asbestos injury claims. Under J.H. France, coverage is provided by policies in effect from the time the claimant was first exposed to asbestos until injury manifests as mesothelioma. The J.H. France court’s decision was expressly based on the science behind mesothelioma, which indicates that mesothelioma is a continuous, progressive injury that begins at the time the …
Continue ReadingCollateral Estoppel Applied to Bar Second Asbestos Case Against Crane by Same Plaintiff
The decedent, a civilian employee for the United States Navy from 1958-1964, died from mesothelioma. Prior to passing he brought suit in St. Louis City, Missouri, in December 2015, which the defendants removed to federal court. His representatives continued the suit after he passed. Defendant Crane Co. filed a motion to dismiss based upon collateral estoppel. The court granted this motion.
In December 2009, the decedent brought an action against Crane and others in Massachusetts based upon asbestosis. Crane filed a motion for summary judgment …
Continue ReadingLaws of Two States Applied to Two Different Issues
The plaintiff alleged the decedent, who died of mesothelioma, was exposed to asbestos while serving as an engineman, machinery repairman, and machinist mate in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s. Although the majority of the decedent’s exposure occurred on four ships, to which maritime law applied, the plaintiff also alleged exposure during the six months decedent trained at a land-based naval academy in Idaho. Here the court decided whether Idaho or Louisiana applied to this six-month time frame. The plaintiff argued Louisiana law applied, and …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment Granted as to Two Defendants and Denied for Several Others in Bare Metal Defense Case
The plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants for their decedent’s alleged development of mesothelioma while working aboard ships as an engine man, machinery repairman, and machinist mate.
The defendants moved for summary judgment again after the court announced it would not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s version of the bare metal defense. The court concluded that “the bare metal defense should immunize only a narrower range of conduct.”
Summary Judgment is appropriate when the court determines that there is no genuine dispute as to material …
Continue ReadingDaubert Challenges Result in Experts Being Allowed to Testify Regarding General Causation; Not Specific Causation
In this federal court case, it was alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in various job duties while in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s. The plaintiff brought two Daubert motions seeking to preclude the defendants’ experts, Drs Michael Graham and Mark Taragin, from testifying. Dr. Graham is a forensic pathologist and Dr. Taragin is an epidemiologist. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motions.
The court would allow each expert to provide general causation testimony …
Continue ReadingPain and Suffering Damages Found as Pecuniary Under Maritime Law; Summary Judgment Granted in Part and Denied in Part
The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff, John Bell, lacked standing to pursue a wrongful death or survival action under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Specifically, the defendants relied on the language in DOHSA, which stated that “when death of an individual is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United States, the personal representative of the decedent may bring a civil action” and the …
Continue ReadingPersonal Jurisdiction Decision by Missouri Supreme Court to Significantly Impact Asbestos Litigation in Missouri
St. Louis City, Missouri is often termed a “judicial hellhole” for corporate defendants in product liability actions, most notably in asbestos litigation. Until recently, Missouri courts offered little guidance on what constituted general jurisdiction for corporate defendants in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014). In Daimler, the Supreme Court held that absent exceptional circumstances, a company is only subject to general jurisdiction in its state of formation or where it has its principal …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Jury Awards $10 Million to Mesothelioma Plaintiff Who Worked with Asbestos Pipe
Plaintiffs Michael and Cindy Burch filed suit against various defendants, including a pipe manufacturer, alleging that Michael Burch developed pleural mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure. After a seven week jury trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $10 million. In doing so, the jury found that the pipe manufacturer misrepresented and concealed the health risks of handling and working with its product.
The plaintiff cut, drilled, and installed asbestos cement pipe while working for J.C. Plumbing Company and Valley Engineers in …
Continue ReadingLack of Factual Basis for Plaintiffs’ Assertion of Causation Yields Grant of Summary Judgment
After the decedent died of mesothelioma, her husband and adult son filed a wrongful death and survivorship complaint against numerous defendants. W.W. Henry Company, predecessor to the Henry Company (who was also named and not a party to this motion) filed a motion for summary judgment based upon lack of exposure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s granting of this motion.
The plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from the early 1970s-early 1980s during the decedent’s work as an art teacher and sculptor, and from …
Continue Reading