LATEST INSIGHTS

Case Decisions / Connecticut / Remand/Removal
Posted by:

Magistrate Judge Recommends Remand to State Court; Removal was Timely, but Defendant Failed to Establish Two of Four Elements of Federal Officer Statute

The plaintiffs filed this personal injury suit in Delaware after the plaintiff Donnie Wines was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Both plaintiffs died before the suit was completed, and their personal representative was substituted. Defendant Rockwell Automation Inc. removed to federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing: (1) that the notice of removal was untimely, and (2) Rockwell did not meet the requirements of the federal officer removal statute. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the plaintiff’s motion.

The plaintiff claimed exposure …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Declines to Address Causation Standard In Upholding Summary Judgment on Trial Court’s Less Burdensome Standard

Plaintiff Patricia Grant and the Estate of Edward Grant appealed from summary judgments entered against them on their complaint for damages for Edward Grant’s lung cancer and death based on negligence, failure to warn of defective, unreasonably dangerous goods, and loss of consortium. Summary judgment was granted on the motions of New England Insulation Company (NEI); Foster Wheeler, LLC; Warren Pumps, LLC; and IMO Industries, Inc. The plaintiff’s decedent Edward Grant worked for Beth Iron Works from 1964 to 1970 and again from 1978 to …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Maryland / Motions in Limine / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony Precluded and Summary Judgment Granted Where Expert Opinion Did Not Rely Upon Sufficient Facts or Data

Plaintiffs Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., et al. filed suit against a number of companies, including defendant CBS Corporation of Delaware (Westinghouse), that allegedly manufactured and/or distributed products containing asbestos to which the plaintiff was exposed, thereby causing his mesothelioma.

The plaintiff offered Dr. Robert Leonard Vance as an expert in matters involving industrial hygiene and asbestos exposures.  Dr. Vance’s written opinion as to Westinghouse focused on two products:  asbestos “socks” and Micarta.  The plaintiff later conceded that that no liability existed as to the asbestos …

Continue Reading
Legislative Updates
Posted by:

Personal Injury Trust Fund Transparency Act Introduced to Assembly Judiciary Committee of New Jersey

On June 2, 2016, a bipartisan bill known as the Personal Injury Trust Fund Transparency Act was introduced to the Assembly Judiciary Committee of New Jersey. Per its synopsis, the act’s main purposes are to require plaintiffs to file personal injury trust claims under certain circumstances, address allocations of trust claims, and establish scheduling and discovery requirements for certain tort actions.

The bill, sponsored by assemblywoman Holly Schepisi and assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson, arose out of its sponsors’ beliefs that there is currently a lack …

Continue Reading
Other Asbestos News
Posted by:

Sealing Technology Manufacturer John Crane Inc. Files Two Lawsuits Against Plaintiffs Firms Alleging Fraud and RICO Violations, Following Step with Garlock

Sealing Technology Manufacturer John Crane Inc. (JCI) has filed two separate lawsuits against asbestos plaintiffs firms Shein Law Center, Ltd. and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, alleging that they violated federal mail and wire fraud statutes, federal obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes, and the federal RICO statute.

JCI claims the defendants “systematically and falsely denied their clients were exposed to numerous other asbestos-containing products in litigation against JCI, and once the litigation was complete, filed claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts set up by …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Expert Challenges / Ohio / Punitive Damages
Posted by:

Court Denies Honeywell’s Appeal on Expert and Causation Challenges and Reverses Directed Verdict on Punitive Damages in Plaintiff’s Favor

The defendant, Honeywell International appealed the judgment entered upon a jury verdict that found Honeywell was five percent responsible for the injuries of the decedent Kathleen Schwartz, who died from peritoneal mesothelioma. The amount of the judgment against Honeywell was $1,011,639.92. The plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to grant a directed verdict against them on their claim for punitive damages.

Honeywell’s appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of motions in limine and the court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict. …

Continue Reading
Science
Posted by:

Jurors in Toxic Tort Litigation Take Genetic Issues Seriously

Can jurors and/or judges grasp the role of genetics in personal injury claims alleged to arise from exposure to specific chemicals?  Can they grasp the issues well enough to really help expert witnesses present the issues clearly, and to help jurors grasp the issues?  In a recent post on this blog, we made reference to the first asbestos trial making explicit reference to a plaintiff with BAP1 mutations and the alleged role of those mutations in the causation story. The point of this month’s post …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on Grant for Summary Judgment in Determination That Defendant Did Not Qualify as “Apparent Manufacturer”

The plaintiff, Harriette Stein, personal representative of the Estate of Carl Stein, filed an amended complaint with claims against defendant Pfizer under the theory that the decedent’s exposure to an asbestos-containing refractory cement, called “Insulag,” which was supplied to the decedent’s employer, Bethlehem Steel, by Pfizer’s subsidiary, Quigley Company, Inc., was a substantial factor in the decedent’s illness and eventual death from mesothelioma. The plaintiff alleged that Pfizer was the “apparent manufacturer” of this product because Quigley’s invoices and marketing materials bore Pfizer’s trademarks, as …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Connecticut
Posted by:

Court Dismisses Cross-Claims for Lack of Ripeness Since There Was No Judgment Against Ford Defendants

The plaintiffs filed suit against multiple defendants for violation of the Connecticut Product Liability Act, loss of consortium, fraud and premises liability, alleging that the plaintiff Kenneth Reed contracted mesothelioma as a result of direct and secondary exposure to asbestos. After the plaintiffs settled with or dismissed sixty-three of the defendants, the complaint was amended as to the only remaining defendants: Ford Motor Company, Bridge-Haven Ford Truck Sales, Inc. and Stamford Motors (collectively, the Ford Defendants). The Ford Defendants answered the amended complaint and, in …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maryland / Statute of Repose / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Boiler Manufacturers Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Statute of Repose

In this case, the decedent, Ralph Vitale, alleged exposure to asbestos from the installation of Burnham and Weil-McLain residential boilers during the course of his work through his own HVAC and plumbing business between 1966 and 1979.  Defendants Burnham, LLC and Weil-McLain, a division of the Marley-Wylain Company, moved for summary judgment  on the basis that no cause of action accrued against them pursuant to Maryland’s statute of repose, codified at Sec. 5-108 of the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings article. Maryland’s statute of …

Continue Reading