Larry Smith worked on various drilling rigs from the mid-1960s until the early 1990s. He was also a heavy smoker. He was diagnosed with lung cancer and died shortly thereafter. His widow and other heirs filed a wrongful death action against several defendants in 2006. At trial, only Union Carbide Corporation, Montello, Inc., and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. remained. The plaintiffs brought a strict liability claim under a products liability design-defect theory and claimed that Mr. Smith’s exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing products on the …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Foreseeability of Harm or Relationship Between The Parties: The Difference in Liability for Premise Owners in Take-Home Exposure Cases
Depending on the state, liability of a premise owner in a take-home toxic tort case will hinge either on foreseeability of harm or the relationship of the parties. This distinction is illustrated below in two recent take-home exposure cases, one from New Jersey and one from Arizona.
In the New Jersey case, Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., 225 N.J. 517, 139 A.3d 84, (N.J. 2016) , the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the premise liability of a landowner can go beyond the spouse …
Continue ReadingSupplier of Asbestos for Joint Compound Denied Summary Judgment
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied the motion for summary judgment of defendant Union Carbide Corporation in a case involving alleged exposure to raw asbestos fiber allegedly in joint compound. James Lee was a painter in North Carolina from the late 1960s into the 2000s, and during that time the plaintiffs allege that Lee applied and sanded asbestos-containing joint compound to finish drywall, as well as sanded and swept joint compound. Sanding joint compound created a dust, which would …
Continue ReadingEmployers Not Liable for Employee Take-Home Exposure
The plaintiffs allege Ernest V. Quiroz was exposed to asbestos from his father’s work clothes during the years he lived at his father’s home (1952 to 1966). Defendant Reynolds moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not owe Dr. Quiroz a duty of care. The trial court granted the motion, finding Reynolds “had no duty to Plaintiffs as a matter of law.” The plaintiffs appealed and the case was heard by the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One.
In a negligence action under …
Continue ReadingCourt Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant Boiler Manufacturer Based on Lack of Causation Under Maritime Law
Plaintiffs Jimmy R. Mitchell and Connie Mitchell filed suit alleging that Mr. Mitchell developed lung cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, in part during the course of his employment as a boiler fireman with the U.S. Navy from 1976-79.
Defendant Foster Wheeler filed for summary judgment and argued, among other things, lack of causation. To establish causation under maritime law (which both parties agree applied), plaintiffs must show that (1) Mr. Mitchell was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler; (2) the exposure …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded on Basis of Failure of Removing Party to Meet Burden of Proof on Improper Joinder
Plaintiff William Bozeman brought suit alleging exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused him to contract mesothelioma. Mr. Bozeman, a Louisiana resident, worked for Arizona Chemical Company, later known as International Paper Company, from 1975 to 1981 and 1981 to 1999 in Louisiana and claims he was exposed while on the job. He filed suit in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish. On September 9, 2016 defendant Wyeth Holding Corp., formerly known as American Cyanamid Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court …
Continue ReadingBreakdown of $21 Million Verdict in Miami, Florida
On August 30, 2016, a Miami, Florida jury awarded nearly $21.4 million in damages to Richard Batchelor and his wife, Regina, in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that Bechtel Corporation caused his mesothelioma. The case proceeded only against the defendants Bechtel Corporation and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, as Foster Wheeler settled the day before the verdict. The verdict sheet demonstrates that, after the jury found that negligence on the part of Bechtel was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s damages, the jury turned to …
Continue ReadingBeware Drafters of Purchase Agreements — Unambiguous Terms in Stock Purchase Agreement Assigns Asbestos Liabilities to Purchasers
Plaintiff Cooper Industries brought a declaratory judgment against Precision Castparts Corp. and Wyman-Gordon Company, for defense and indemnification costs for personal injury asbestos lawsuits, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement between Cooper and Wyman. The plaintiff and defendants both filed summary judgments; the plaintiff’s summary judgment was granted in part, and the defendants’ summary judgment was denied.
Cooper acquired Cameron Iron Works in 1989; in 1994 Wyman purchased the Forged Products business unit from Cooper pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). In 1995, Cooper …
Continue ReadingDelaware Justices: Asbestos Injury Triggers Coverage Continually from First Significant Exposure
The Delaware Supreme Court took up several issues in the ongoing dispute between plaintiffs, Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC, and various insurers who issued excess policies to Viking and Warren’s predecessor, Houdaille Industries, Inc. between 1972 and 1985 (the Excess Insurers). Houdaille, and later Viking and Warren, manufactured pumps containing asbestos, and a multitude of claims against Viking and Warren related to asbestos exposure have given rise to a lengthy dispute between Viking and Warren and their insurers.
In the present decision, the …
Continue ReadingCourt Reverses Verdict Against Crane Co. and Remands as to Cigarette Defendants After Daubert Challenge
Plaintiff Richard Delisle filed suit against multiple defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to sheet gaskets manufactured by Crane Co. and from the asbestos fibers from Micronite filters from smoking Kent cigarettes. The jury found both defendants’ products were a substantial contributing cause (SCC) of the development of Delisle’s mesothelioma. Both defendants unsuccessfully moved for directed verdicts and filed for appeal.
Crane Co. argued that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. James Dahlgren should not have been permitted to testify as an expert …
Continue Reading