In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Robert Hanson, filed a complaint in 2010 against various defendants, including “Doe” defendants, alleging asbestos exposure caused his asbestosis. In 2012, the plaintiff substituted Collins Electrical Company for one of the Doe defendants. In 2013, Collins moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of asbestosis or any asbestos-related injury. While the motion was pending, the plaintiff was allowed to file a first amended complaint, which removed any reference to asbestosis and claimed …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Federal Court Applies Bare Metals Defense in Finding Boiler Manufacturer Not Liable for Asbestos Supplied by Third Parties
After the plaintiff’s husband died from lung cancer, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging strict liability and negligence due to asbestos exposure from his work insulating and maintaining boilers. It was transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL, then remanded back to Wisconsin federal court. Defendant Trane U.S., Inc. then moved for summary judgment, arguing: (1) it did not assume the liabilities of American Standard, and (2) American Standard did not manufacture, distribute or specify the asbestos materials that caused decedent’s injuries. The court granted the motion …
Continue ReadingDespite Satisfying Foreseeability, Illinois Federal Court Finds No Duty in Secondary Take Home Exposure Case
The plaintiff filed an action for negligence in Illinois state court, alleging she contracted mesothelioma through “take home” exposure from her son, who used asbestos friction paper while working as a mechanic. The defendants removed to federal court based on diversity. Defendant MW Custom Papers LLC, as successor-in-interest to Mead Corporation, filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it did not owe her a duty. The court granted the motion.
First, MW argued the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts as to foreseeability. The court …
Continue ReadingVague and Conclusory Evidence in Support of Federal Officer Removal Rights Insufficient, Case Remanded to California State Court
The plaintiff in this case, the decedent’s wife, alleged secondary exposure to her husband through asbestos brought home by the decedent’s father while working as an aircraft mechanic on the base of the Army National Guard. Defendant The Boeing Company removed on federal officer grounds, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand when four defendants remained — Pep Boys, Continental Motors, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, and IMO Industries. Goodyear was the only defendant which opposed the motion to remand. The court granted the plaintiff’s …
Continue ReadingMotion to Remand Granted Based on Supporting Documents Showing Asbestos Work of Non-Diverse Defendant and Early Stage of Discovery
In this case, the plaintiff alleged exposure through his father’s work close from 1953 through the 1970s. The plaintiff’s father worked at the Exxon Baton Rouge facility. The plaintiff also claimed exposure to asbestos as an adult while working as a carpenter at various residential construction sites and as a contractor at Exxon between 1965 through 1978. Defendant Exxon removed the action to federal court based on diversity with the consent of defendants Georgia-Pacific, LLC and Union Carbide Corporation . The plaintiff subsequently moved to …
Continue ReadingGarlock’s Action Based on Fraud For Failure to Disclose Exposure to Bankrupt Manufacturer’s Products Dismissed as Time-Barred
In a prior action brought by estate representative, Delores Robertson, for alleged asbestos exposure to the decedent, Thomas Robertson, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC was found by a jury to be 25-percent liable. The remainder of the liability was split between the decedent and other settled and non-settled first and third party defendants. Judgment was entered on December 1, 2008. On July 26, 2012, Garlock brought an action pursuant to CR 60.02(d) claiming that the judgment was based on fraud for plaintiff failing to disclose in …
Continue ReadingCase Remanded to State Court to Hear Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Personal Jurisdiction as State Court Issues Predominate Case
In this case, the decedent Oscar Villanueva, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from various products while working at Glendale Auto Radio Stereo from 1969 to 1990. Defendant FCA US LLC removed the case to federal court since any judgment would have an impact on its bankruptcy estate. Defendant Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche moved to dismiss arguing improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the claim against FCA and moved to remand for lack of subject matter …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Allows Expert Opinion Testimony on “Every Exposure” Theory
The plaintiff presented expert testimonial evidence at trial that her father’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to his risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff; defendant Honeywell International appealed on two grounds: (1) the “every exposure” theory should have been excluded under California law, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to give a supplemental jury instruction regarding factors relevant to the substantial factor determination. The court found no error.
For …
Continue ReadingSection 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act Statute of Repose Found Unconstitutional
In this federal court case, three appeals regarding the constitutionality of the Indiana product liability act statute of repose were consolidated for review. Several defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of repose in each of the cases with various results. The plaintiffs now argue that section 2 of the statute draws a constitutional impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who have claims against defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos and those asbestos plaintiffs that have claims against defendants that …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Motion to Remand Granted and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant’s Notice of Removal Both Substantively and Procedurally Improper
The plaintiff filed an action in California state court against various defendants after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises removed to federal court after it was the only remaining defendant on the basis of diversity. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand and for attorneys’ fees. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion.
O’Reilly’s notice of removal was both substantively and procedurally improper. A complaint that is not initially removable due to non-diversity may become removable where diversity arises due to a plaintiff’s …
Continue Reading