Plaintiff James Waite and his wife Sandra Waite brought this action against Ford Motor Co. and Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for Mr. Waites’ alleged development of mesothelioma from his work on brakes and clutches. UCC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was at first denied by the Court but then granted on UCC’s Motion for Reconsideration. Ford then moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts (Daubert Motion) and for summary judgment. The plaintiff moved to preclude various elements of Ford’s proposed expert witness testimony …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Appeals Court finds No Conflict of Laws and Reverses Dismissal Based on Alaska Statute of Repose
Plaintiff Larry Hoffman filed suit in the Superior Court of Washington, Pierce County against numerous defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos. Specifically, Hoffman is alleging take-home exposure from his father working as a welder for Ketchikan in Alaska in the 1950s and 1960s. Hoffman also alleges exposure from his own work at Ketchikan pulp mills in the 1960s and 1970s. Each mill featured steam turbines manufactured by General Electric (GE). Although it operated solely in Alaska, Ketchikan is a Washington corporation, having …
Continue ReadingJury Returns Defense Verdict on Failure to Warn and Design Defect Claims Involving Contaminated Talc and Kent Cigarettes
In a case involving a variety of alleged asbestos exposures, trial proceeded against three defendants – Lorillard Tobacco, H&V, and Whittaker Clark – for asbestos exposures through allegedly contaminated talc and Kent cigarettes with micronite filters. The jury found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence its failure to warn claims against all three defendants. Design defect claims were alleged against Lorillard and H&V; again, the jury found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that both …
Continue ReadingNew Considerations in Defending Against Lung Cancer Cases Part 1: HPV Status
For some time now, we have been writing, discussing, and suggesting that there is great value in thinking about genetic and other “omic” data when defending toxic tort or product liability cases involving disease allegations of any kind. But these “omic” data are especially critical in cases involving allegations of cancer causation.
On this note, we were intrigued when we saw a recent post reporting that defense experts and lawyers in asbestos litigation spent some time thinking about the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) as a …
Continue ReadingDefendants Granted Summary Judgment Where Plaintiff Failed to Satisfy Frequency, Proximity, Regularity Standard
Plaintiff Robert Lee Winhauer filed an asbestos action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants, asserting personal injury claims relating to a mesothelioma diagnosis proximately caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. After Winhauer’s death, the complaint was amended to substitute a representative of the estate and add a wrongful death claim. The defendants Honeywell (successor in interest to Bendix) and Ingersoll Rand both filed motions for summary judgment, which …
Continue ReadingCourt Rules Summary Judgment Not Appropriate Due to Ambiguity on How Non-Cumulation Clause Operated
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company issued successive annual insurance policies to the Fairbanks Company from January 1, 1974 to January 1, 1982. Liberty issued both comprehensive general liability and umbrella policies. Multiple lawsuits were filed in several jurisdictions against Fairbanks, alleging injuries due to exposure to asbestos, and this coverage litigation resulted.
On March 21, 2016, the court ruled on Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the policies were subject to pro rata allocation such that Liberty was only liable to indemnify Fairbanks for the …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Own Allegations Fail to Establish Personal Jurisdiction Against Defendant Federal-Mogul
In the same case reported on today, the court also determined whether personal jurisdiction existed for defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Injury Trust, as successor to the former Vellumoid Division of Federal-Mogul and as successor to Felt-Products Manufacturing Co. (Federal-Mogul). The plaintiff failed to respond to Federal-Mogul’s personal jurisdiction motion. The complaint listed 78 defendants, and alleged that all defendants were amenable to suit in Missouri by reason of having sold, distributed and/or installed asbestos-containing products in Missouri or by reason of having placed the same …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Attempt to Avoid Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Disclaiming Federal Officer Claims Unsuccessful
The plaintiff asserted various claims against 78 defendants due to mesothelioma developed from alleged asbestos exposure incurred during his civilian work in the Navy from 1958-64, Kambien from 1966-69, and Polaroid from 1969-97. The plaintiff attempted to make the action un-removable by disclaiming any relief for injuries sustained upon a federal enclave or as a result of malfeasance of persons acting as federal officers. However, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony triggered defendant Crane’s right to remove. Crane timely removed and the plaintiff moved to remand, which …
Continue Reading$3.5 Million Verdict Against National Grid Generation, LLC Upheld
On August 4, 2016, the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the jury’s award of $3.5 million against defendant National Grid Generation, LLC. The evidence showed that LILCO, National Grid’s predecessor in interest, issued detailed specifications directing contractors on how to mix and apply asbestos-containing concrete and insulation at a power plant. This supported the jury’s finding of a violation of Labor Law § 200. The fact that LILCO ensured that its directives were followed by supervising the superintendents, rather than by directly supervising the …
Continue ReadingCourt Provides Mixed Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages Brought by Boiler Manufacturers
The Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania recently ruled on partial motions for summary judgment with respect to punitive damages asserted by the paintiffs, Robert Horst, Jr. and Diane Horst. Defendants filing said motions included Burnham, LLC , Lennox Industries, Inc., and Weil-McLain.
The court stated that, in Pennsylvania, a punitive damages claim must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that (1) a defendant had a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed and that …
Continue Reading