LATEST INSIGHTS

Asbestos Litigation Analysis / Science
Posted by:

Multiple Factors and Causation in Cancer Litigation: Examples from a Coal Tar Pitch Bladder Cancer Case

How many external sources have a role in cancer causation? And to what extent can scientists and lawyers parse these factors in today’s age of molecular investigation of cancers? For purposes of analysis, this post looks at a hypothetical bladder cancer case in which there are assertions regarding smoking, asbestosis, and occupational coal tar pitch exposure in the context of manufacturing of carbon graphite electrodes.

Assume that the plaintiff’s industrial hygiene expert asserts that the bladder cancer was caused by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) occurring …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / FELA / Virginia
Posted by:

After Defendant Files Second Asbestos-Injury Claim, Federal Court Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff CSX’s Declaratory Judgment Action for Lack of Jurisdiction

Plaintiff CSX Transportation asserted a claim for declaratory relief, after the defendant filed an injury claim for lung cancer, which he claimed was asbestos-related. The defendant had settled a claim against CSX for an asbestos-related injury in 2003, and under the 2003 settlement agreement, he allegedly released CSX from future claims involving asbestos and cancer. The agreement included an indemnity provision, which CSX invoked in requesting defendant to indemnify it for the 2015 state court action. The agreement also released CSX from all claims which …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Federal Officer Jurisdiction / Louisiana
Posted by:

Case Against Crane Remanded to State Court Based on Lack of Evidence of the Exercise of Government Discretion Under the Federal Officer Removal Statute

In this case, the plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure from various sources, including from his time aboard Naval vessels during the Korean War. Defendant Crane removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1442(a)(1), the federal officer removal statute.  The plaintiff moved to remand the case, arguing that Crane did not meet the standard to remove under the statute.

In opposition to the remand, Crane submitted a 2011 affidavit from one of its officers stating that “the manufacture of equipment for use on Navy vessels …

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

Statute of Repose Doesn’t Apply in Reversal of Summary Judgment as Evidence Regarding Work Deemed Insufficient to Show an Improvement to Property

In this case, the plaintiff, Sandra Brezonick, alleged that the decedent, John Brezonick, was exposed to asbestos at various sites while working as a steamfitter in the Milwaukee area between 1966 and 2000. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged product liability, negligence and safe place statute claims under Wis. Stat. § 101.11 against numerous defendants.  The defendants included property owners Pabst Brewing Company, Miller Brewing Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) — where asbestos was allegedly used — and insulation contractor Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, which allegedly …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Maritime/Admiralty Law / New Jersey / Summary Judgment
Posted by:

Turbine Manufacturer Entitled to Summary Judgment Under Both Maritime Law and New Jersey State Law

The plaintiff in this case,  Samuel Feaster, alleged exposure to asbestos while employed at a shipyards in New Jersey and  Pennsylvania. Defendant General Electric Company (GE) moved for summary judgment based on maritime law arguing that there was no evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured or supplied by them.

The court applied maritime law and granted GE’s motion. The court stated that under maritime law, the plaintiff must show that he was exposed to the defendant’s products and the …

Continue Reading
California / Case Decisions
Posted by:

Strict Product Liability Claim Reinstated Against Plastering Contractor for Construction Work on Building Complex in 1970s

In this case, the plaintiff, Joel Hernandezcueva, alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working as a janitor in the Fluor complex in the 1990s. It was alleged that defendant E.F. Brady was a subcontractor doing drywall and plastering work with asbestos-containing materials manufactured by Kaiser and Hamilton during the construction of the complex in the 1970s. During trial and following completion of the plaintiff’s case in chief, Brady’s motion for partial nonsuit dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of strict liability, misrepresentation, and intentional failure to …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / New York
Posted by:

New York Federal Court Grants Auto Repair Parts Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case to Florida Federal Court

In this federal case, the plaintiff brought an action against defendants BASF Catalysts LLC, Superior Materials, Inc. and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. for the asbestos exposure and death of her husband, Pedro Rosado-Rivera. The plaintiff alleges that each defendant sold an asbestos-containing auto body repair filler that the decedent worked with at auto shops in New York, Puerto Rico, and Florida.  The defendants moved to transfer the case to The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The court granted the …

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

Pump Manufacturers Had a Duty to Warn Even Though Decedent Never Exposed to Original Pump Gaskets and Packing

The plaintiff, a widow, brought claims against pump manufacturers Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps, and IMO Industries (defendants) for asbestos exposure sustained by her deceased husband while serving in the Navy for 20 years, from 1956 until 1976. The decedent died of mesothelioma. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had no duty to warn of asbestos-containing replacement parts that they neither made nor placed in the stream of commerce. The circuit court granted this motion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed, …

Continue Reading
Case Decisions / Damages / New York
Posted by:

Post-Trial Motion for Additur Granted, Increasing Mesothelioma Pain and Suffering Damages

The plaintiff’s decedent, Richard Voelker, was diagnosed with and died from mesothelioma. A personal injury action was pursued and resulted in a verdict awarding the Estate various damages, including a pain and suffering award of $250,000. The plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for additur arguing that the jury’s award for pain and suffering was inadequate compensation for Mr. Voelker’s “extraordinarily horrific” suffering. The court granted the motion, increasing the pain and suffering award to $600,000.

The court cited to the plaintiff’s video trial testimony and …

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

California Court Relies on Absence of Evidence in Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses to Affirm Summary Judgment for Defendant Fluor

A husband and wife sued numerous defendants after the husband was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2011. Defendant Fluor moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of fact that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from Fluor products. The appellate court affirmed.

The plaintiffs alleged the husband was exposed to a variety of asbestos-containing products during his work with Southern California Gas Company from the 1950s-90s. In response to discovery from Fluor, the …

Continue Reading