Crane Asserted a Colorable Federal Defense to Establish Jurisdiction Under Federal Officer Removal Statute

The plaintiff sued various defendants for negligence, strict liability, and fraudulent inducement. Crane removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, and plaintiff moved to remand. The court denied this motion.

To remove under Section 1442(a)(1) the defendant must qualify as a “person” under the federal officer removal statute, must act under the direction of a federal officer at the time the defendant engaged in the allegedly tortious act, and must advance a “colorable federal defense.” Also, a causal connection must appear between …

Continue Reading

Various Rulings in NYCAL Case Regarding Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence

The plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure through his work as a roofer, maintenance man, and carpenter. The defendants submitted a joint motion in limine to preclude certain evidence. The court issued various rulings, summarized below.

First, the defendants asserted that Dr. Jacqueline Moline would offer a scientifically unsupportable causation opinion that every occupational exposure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s mesothelioma. This was also known, among other things, as the “each and every exposure” or “cumulative exposure” theory. At the outset the court noted …

Continue Reading

National Forum on Asbestos Claims and Litigation

On Thursday, January 12, 2017, Joseph J. Welter, partner and chair of Goldberg Segalla’s Toxic Tort and Environmental Practice Group, will be speaking at ACI’s Asbestos Claims and Litigation Conference in Philadelphia. This is ACI’s 22nd National Forum on Asbestos Claims and Litigation and will feature several topics, including:

  • Insurer-counsel-insured relationships: strategy between client, carrier, national counsel, and local counsel
  • Fallout surrounding bankruptcy trust transparency
  • Lung cancer and asbestos and a closer look at the science behind it

Joe will be part of the …

Continue Reading

Death of Statutory Beneficiary During Pendency of Jones Act Claim Did Not Extinguish Jones Act Claims; Estate Could Recover Benefit

Defendant Thompson Hine filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s Jones Act survival claims abated due to no statutory beneficiary. The court denied the motion.

The plaintiff alleged that the decedent, Joseph Braun, was exposed to asbestos during his work aboard ships owned by the defendants and died from an asbestos-related disease. This case was originally filed in 1989 and asserted claims under the Jones Act and general maritime common law. In April 2011, the case was transferred to MDL 875 as …

Continue Reading

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted, but Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint

The plaintiffs initially filed a “short form asbestos complaint” in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, that included general counts for negligence, strict liability, loss of consortium, conspiracy, and fraud. The plaintiffs also realleged and incorporated counts for wrongful death from the master complaint. The case was removed to federal court and the defendants filed the motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), among other arguments, with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. A motion for judgment on …

Continue Reading

New York Federal Court Refuses to Apply Viking Pump Without First Receiving Briefs From Parties

Columbus McKinnon Corporation (CMCO) sued Travelers Indemnity Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company alleging that insurance policies issued to CMCO obligate them to defend and indemnify CMCO with respect to thousands of lawsuits filed against CMCO for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and sold by CMCO and its predecessors.

CMCO sought leave to file an expedited motion seeking to compel Liberty Mutual to pay 100 percent of CMCO’s defense costs in the underlying lawsuits based on the New York Court …

Continue Reading

Was There Exposure? Objective Tests Through Advances in Biomarker Science Relevant to Asbestos and Other Toxic Tort Litigation

Some of the most difficult product liability cases to resolve are tough because of a lack of clarity as to the duration or amount of exposure. For example, defendants and plaintiffs sometimes take very different views of exposure in the so-called “take home” cases where a spouse allegedly developed a cancer from a “toxin” in the workplace of the other spouse. Over the next few years, some litigants will be smart enough to take advantage of the findings from new, objective tests that are arising …

Continue Reading

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Lack of Exposure Evidence and Opposition

The plaintiffs brought this action against multiple defendants alleging Mr. Evans developed an asbestos related disease as a result of his exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans alleged that he worked as a fireman and boiler tender on-board the USS Kearsarge from 1957-61 and USS Bole in 1961. Mr. Evans believed that he had been exposed to asbestos from gaskets and refractory products while in the U.S. Navy. Mr. Evans also alleged that he had been exposed to brake dust …

Continue Reading

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Establish Exposure Evidence

The plaintiff alleged he developed mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working with the U.S. Navy from 1961-64 and from 1961-78 with various employers. Defendant Crane Co. removed the case to the U.S. District Court on August 31, 2015. Defendants CBS Corporation, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, FMC Corporation, and Ingersoll Rand moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed no opposition to those motions.

The court began its analysis with the standard for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is …

Continue Reading

Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to Apply Federal Maritime Law

Plaintiffs Ralph Elliott Shaw and Joan Sanderson Shaw initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of Delaware on February 26, 2015 asserting various causes of action arising out of Mr. Shaw’s alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment. Specifically, the plaintiff’s allegations include Mr. Shaw’s occupational exposure as a sheet metal worker in Groton, Connecticut from approximately 1952 to 1954 and 1957 to 1967. Mr. Shaw alleged exposure to asbestos throughout his employment, at various submarine factories and shipyards with respect …

Continue Reading