The plaintiff in this Washington federal court case alleged that the decedent, John McCrossin, was exposed to asbestos from a variety of products, including boilers, while serving in the Navy. Defendant Fraser’s, which maintained that it only assembled boilers, moved for summary judgment raising superseding cause, strict liability, and government contractor arguments. The court found an issue of fact on all of the arguments and denied summary judgment. On the superseding cause, defense the court held: “In sum, Fraser’s has presented no evidence that, if …Continue Reading
In this case, the plaintiff presented an affidavit of decedent attesting to asbestos exposure, a death certificate confirming the mesothelioma, and co-worker depositions showing that the decedent was generally exposed to asbestos at the Groton Connecticut shipyard while overhauling nuclear submarines. Several defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that while the plaintiff established the decedent’s exposure to asbestos during his career, there was no evidence that causally connected any of that exposure to any of the particular defendants. The court initially ruled that …Continue Reading
The plaintiff in this Louisiana federal court case alleged that decedent pipefitter was exposed to asbestos while at various locations during his career, including a one-to-two-week period at Union Carbide. Union Carbide offered the expert testimony of industrial hygienist Dr. William Dyson to perform a dose reconstruction assessment of the decedent’s level of asbestos exposure throughout his life and specifically during the one-to-two-week period at Union Carbide. The plaintiff moved to preclude Dr. Dyson’s opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert principles. In …Continue Reading
In this California state case, the plaintiff, a Texas resident, claimed asbestos exposure in both California and Texas, although the particular claimed exposure against certain defendants was in Texas. These defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that under Texas law, the plaintiff was unable to meet the legal standard of causation. Both the lower and appellate courts in California, under choice of law principles, ruled that Texas law applied and, under the higher causation standard in Texas, granted summary judgment. With respect to Texas law …Continue Reading
Plaintiff Todd Alexander commenced a wrongful death action claiming decedent Richard Alexander was exposed to asbestos in connection with his sheet metal, heating, and plumbing business. Defendants Auer and Milwaukee Stove moved for summary judgment under Wisconsin’s Statute of Repose and, in the alternative, along with defendant CertainTeed, on lack of causation. The lower court granted Auer’s and Milwaukee Stove’s motion based on the Statute of Repose and CertainTeed’s motion based on causation.
On appeal, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals avoided ruling on the Statute …Continue Reading
Following the highly publicized $190 million verdict in NYCAL in five consolidated asbestos cases, the defendants were successful in reducing the collective award to just under $30 million on a post-trial motion. While the trial court rejected the defendants’ arguments on certain evidentiary issues, causation, apportionment, consolidation, and recklessness, it recognized that the verdicts materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation.
The court applied the reasoning from the recent appellate court ruling in the Dummit case where the First Department assessed reasonable compensation based …Continue Reading
In this MDL asbestos case, plaintiff brought an action claiming he had asbestosis. CBS and General Electric moved for summary judgment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which motion was unopposed. At the time the motion was brought, plaintiff had been diagnosed with mesothelioma but such claim had not yet been added to the lawsuit (although disclosed in discovery responses). After the summary judgment motion was granted, plaintiff’s estate commenced another lawsuit in which his estate sought to pursue the mesothelioma claim.
The Federal Court …Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of Utah ruled that a recovery by an asbestos plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit does not bar a subsequent wrongful death claim brought by his heirs, but there cannot be any double recovery. The plaintiff, who had peritoneal mesothelioma, went to trial against Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide and was awarded a substantial recovery. Following his death, the plaintiff’s heirs brought a wrongful death and survival claim against Georgia-Pacific, Union Carbide, and others seeking recovery under Utah’s wrongful death statute, which specifically …Continue Reading