The plaintiffs brought this action against several defendants for alleged exposure to asbestos and development of mesothelioma while working as a ship fitter at several shipyards from approximately 1964 until 2014. Defendants Cummins, CBS, and Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he rolled out amosite and cut it with an electric knife to make A-Cloth pads at the shipyards. He also stated that he had insulated various pieces of equipment including turbines, boilers, and generators. As to the defendants, Malone …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Summary Judgment Denied Where Defendant Merely Pointed to Gaps in Evidence and Asked Court to Weigh Credibility of Witness
In this case, the plaintiff Gaspar Hernandez-Vega alleges that he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working as a pipefitter. At his deposition, Hernandez-Vega testified interchangeably to work with “Edward valves,” “Vogt valves,” and “Edward-Vogt valves” that exposed him to asbestos through his changing of the packing and gaskets applied to those valves. The defendant Flowserve is the successor in interest for Edward Valves, Inc., the Vogt Valve Company, and Edward-Vogt (created following a merger of the two …
Continue ReadingCalifornia High Court Declines to Review Appellate Reversal of Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment
On August 25, 2016, the California Supreme Court, without a written opinion, declined to hear a petition to review an appellate panel’s decision to overturn a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hennessy Industries Inc. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the decedent, Frank Rondon, worked as a mechanic using defendant Hennessy’s (Ammco Tools) brake arcing machines designed to grind asbestos brake shoes. Hennessy moved for summary judgment arguing that the brake grinders did not contain asbestos and plaintiffs could not establish that …
Continue ReadingRemand Granted Based on Finding that Plaintiffs Acted in Good Faith Naming Defendant With State Contact
The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including several “citizens” of California. Four days before trial defendant John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court on diversity. The plaintiff then moved to remand.
The court began its analysis by stating the legal standard for removal which permits removal when the federal court could have “exercised original jurisdiction” in the case. Additionally, the burden falls upon the removing defendant. A case may be removed under diversity unless one of the parties is a properly joined and served …
Continue ReadingMagistrate Judge Recommends Various Rulings on Five Summary Judgment Motions Filed by Defendants
The United States Magistrate Judge recommended disposition on five summary judgment motions filed by various defendants in this mesothelioma case wherein plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure during plaintiff Mark Hillyer’s employment with the U.S. Navy from 1967-1997. The only product identification witness was plaintiff Mark Hillyer, who testified that he was exposed to asbestos through his maintenance work on reactor plant systems, steam plant systems, engines, and turbine generators. In deciding these motions, the court applied maritime law such that plaintiff must show that (1) he …
Continue ReadingExclusion of Belated Theory of Exposure Upheld on Appeal
The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including “asbestos” and “premises” defendants, asserting claims of negligence, strict liability and premises liability based on his alleged asbestos exposure in the City of Coalinga (where he resided from 1959 to 1972) and during his 30-year career as a pipe inspector.
Defendant PAC Operating Limited Partnership was sued as a premises defendant. Its predecessor, Southern Pacific Land Company (SPLC), owned 557 acres of land in the Diablo Mountain Range, located 17 miles outside of Coalinga. In 1961, SPLC leased the …
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment for Crane Manufacturer Based on Affidavit of Company Vice President
Plaintif Katherine Filosi, individually and as executor of the estate of Donald Filosi, filed a complaint against multiple defendants, including American Crane & Equipment Corporation (ACECO). The plaintiff alleged that the decedent Donald Filosi was exposed to asbestos while employed by Boat Corporation (Electric Boat) as a rigger from 1961 to 1998 and, as a result of that exposure, he developed lung cancer and died.
Defendant ACECO moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff produced no evidence from which a jury could conclude that …
Continue ReadingCourt Denies Multiple Motions including Plaintiff and Ford Motor Co.’s Daubert Motions, Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
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 ReadingAppeals 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 Reading