Plaintiff Richard Batchelor, a former employee of Florida Power & Light Company who was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma after he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers from asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, distributed, or controlled, by the defendants, sued in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County Florida alleging three causes of action; (i) negligence; (ii) strict liability; and (iii) loss of consortium. Following Batchelor’s deposition, during which he testified that he served in the U.S. Navy and, …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Summary Judgment in Favor of the U.S. Government Reversed as Finder of Fact Could Reasonably Conclude Naval Facility Asbestos Exposure was Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Mesothelioma
Plaintiff Roger Botts, a former deliveryman who developed mesothelioma after being around work which exposed him to asbestos, including the removal, installation, and fabrication of asbestos on board ships and around the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard between 1970 and 1976, sued the United States Government in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The government subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the plaintiffs had not proven causation. In granting summary judgment, the District Court found that the plaintiffs failed …
Continue ReadingOregon Jury Finds Against Gasket Manufacturer, Awarding Plaintiff $5 Million
The plaintiff in this case, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma, maintained dry kilns and boilers with asbestos gaskets sold by Mar-Dustrial, which denied selling products to the mill where the plaintiff worked from 1969-2000. The jury disagreed with Mar-Dustrial, and awarded the plaintiff $3.25 million for pain and suffering and $1.75 million for loss of consortium. Mar-Dustrial was the only defendant left at trial, and was assigned 22 percent of liability. The plaintiff called Dr. Carl A. Brodkin as an expert; no experts testified on …
Continue ReadingDistrict Court’s Denial of Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Reversed Upon Reconsideration on the Basis of Lack of Specific Jurisdiction
The plaintiff, who developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos products while working in Massachusetts between the 1940s and 1970s, sued the defendant Union Carbide and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where he later moved, seeking compensatory damages pursuant to causes of action for negligence, strict liability, and failure to use reasonable care. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion. The defendant then filed …
Continue ReadingTrial Court Denies Mechanical Contractor’s Motion for Summary Judgment Opposed by Co-Defendants
The plaintiff sued the defendants for his mesothelioma allegedly contracted from his work at the Northpoint Power Station in Northport, Long Island. Mechanical contractor, O’Connor, moved for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims and cross claims. The motion was opposed by co-defendants National Grid and National Grid USA Service Company.
O’Connor maintained that summary judgment is appropriate because the plaintiff did not identify O’Connor in his Interrogatories and deposition testimony. However, the co-defendants opposed, stating that their affidavits submitted create a sufficient issue of …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appeals Court Applies “Inevitable Use” and Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment as to Brake Arcing Defendant
The appellant brought an appeal on behalf of her late husband, Frank Rondon, arguing that the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment as to her claims for strict liability and negligence. 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 it did not manufacturer, distribute, or design asbestos containing products. Hennessy relied upon expert declarations that non-asbestos brake show linings were available in the …
Continue ReadingU.S. District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration on Grant of Summary Judgment as to Daubert Challenge, Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity, and Public Nuisance Claim
The plaintiffs brought a motion for reconsideration for the court’s decision to grant partial summary judgment as to the defendant Weyerhauser’s motion as to its Daubert challenge, The plaintiffs’ claims for Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity and public nuisance claim.
The court stated that Rule 56 does not provide for a motion for reconsideration but permits a motion to alter judgment. However, the standard requires the movant to show a “manifest error” in judgment or that newly discovered evidence is available. The court noted that the rule …
Continue ReadingFourth Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment on Substantial Factor Causation and Affirms Denial of Remand Based on Federal Officer Jurisdiction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in two consolidated appeals upholding the granting of summary judgment to defendants CBS Corporation, General Electric Corporation (GE), MCIC (local insulation contractor), Paramount Packing & Rubber Company, Phelps Packing & Rubber Company, SB Decking, Inc., Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (local insulation contractor), and Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation. The two consolidated cases involved alleged exposures to dust asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied, or installed by the defendants at Baltimore, Maryland area shipyards.
On appeal, …
Continue ReadingCourt of Appeals of Ohio Finds Reversible Error in Refusal of Daubert Hearing On Basis of Opinions of Drs. Strauchen and Frank
In this case it is alleged that the decedent, Glenn Watkins, was exposed to chrysotile asbestos dust from the sanding of Bendix brakes while working as a manager at various Auto Shack and AutoZone retail stores between 1985 and 2006 and that this exposure was a substantial cause of his pleural mesothelioma and death. Prior to trial, all defendants other than Honeywell International Inc. settled or were dismissed. The issue at trial was whether Watkins’ handling of Bendix brakes was a cause-in-fact of his mesothelioma, …
Continue ReadingU.S. District Court of Connecticut Denies Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages Count Based on Sufficiency of Pleading
In this case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the plaintiffs’ third count of their complaint alleges reckless conduct by the defendants and seeks punitive damages. Defendant Aurora Pump Company moved to dismiss this count, arguing that the plaintiff failed to assert specific allegations of recklessness. The court noted, however, that the plaintiff alleges that the defendants manufactured, distributed, sold or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce products which contained asbestos and that the defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed …
Continue Reading