Case Remanded Based on Dismissal and Settlement of Defendants with Federal Defenses

This case was originally filed in the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison County. The defendant, Crane Co., removed based on the Federal Officer Removal Statute 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) and defendant General Electric Company (GE) joined in. The plaintiff moved to remand the case and GE was the only defendant to oppose. Prior to the court rendering a decision, GE was dismissed from the case and Crane settled. CBS Corporation then filed a notice of joinder or removal, which the court found untimely.

The court granted …

Continue Reading

Merchant Mariner Plaintiffs’ Allegations Focusing on Vessel Operation — Instead of Vessel Design — Prohibited Removal Under Federal Officer Removal Statute

This is a consolidated case in which various plaintiffs alleged asbestos exposure while working as merchant mariners aboard many different vessels and employers. Each plaintiff also served on at least one Navy ship. The plaintiffs sued their former employers in Louisiana state court under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The defendants removed to federal court, and the district court remanded. The 5th Circuit held that remand was proper.

The defendants argued for removal under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, in which actions …

Continue Reading

Jury Returns Defense Verdict for John Crane, But Awards $14 million against Celanese

On October 8, 2015, a South Carolina jury found Texas-based materials company Celanese Corp. liable in a lawsuit brought by the family of a maintenance worker who died of cancer after being exposed to asbestos at one of Celanese’s plants in the 1970s.

After two weeks of trial, the jury unanimously awarded the family of Dennis Seay $12 million in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages as a result of Celanese’s negligence. John Crane, the second defendant in the case and the maker …

Continue Reading

Experts Deem New Legislation in Oregon Insufficient, Call for Stricter Asbestos Rules

On October 19, 2015, Oregon environmental regulators invited two dozen asbestos experts to a meeting in an effort to determine the best way to implement a new law that would require contractors to investigate for asbestos when demolishing a house. The group, however, went far beyond the scope of this approved legislation, determining that contractors should provide documented proof that they’ve checked for asbestos before a demolition, that asbestos work done by homeowners should no longer be exempt, and that the rule should apply to …

Continue Reading

California Jury Returns Complete Defense Verdict in Mesothelioma Claim

On October 7, 2015, the Alameda County Superior Court in California found in favor of defendant John Crane Inc. in an asbestos exposure lawsuit. The plaintiff, James Harkin, had asserted that his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos from valve packing manufactured by John Crane Inc. and brought several asbestos-related product liability claims.  He further argued that his mesothelioma additionally occurred as a result of working in the presence of Oscar E. Erickson employees while they disturbed asbestos containing materials at an oil refinery.…

Continue Reading

UK Parliamentary Group Declares Final War on Asbestos, Calls for Complete and Accelerated Eradication

In Britain, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Occupational Safety and Health (“the Group”) is demanding legislation that will work to completely eliminate asbestos from buildings in the UK.  The Group wants to put regulations in place that will require the safe, phased, and planned removal of asbestos in every workplace in Britain.  It also wants asbestos reports included in all home-buyers’ surveys and a national program of asbestos surveys.

In its recommendations, the Group wants to require that all commercial, public, and rented domestic premises …

Continue Reading

A Call for an Evidence Based Approach in Asbestos Lung Cancer Cases: Better Late Than Never?

My friend and colleague Laura Kingsley Hong recently authored an article entitled “Controversies Regarding The Role of Asbestos Exposure in the Causation of Lung Cancer: The Need for An Evidence Based Approach,” which appeared in Mealey’s Litigation Report. Ms. Hong’s commentary ties together current medicolegal concepts that are applied in virtually every scientifically-based litigation to longstanding but evolving scientific issues in asbestos litigation. While this is a debate that needs to happen, it raises the interesting question of why now and why not before?

In …

Continue Reading

Federal Court Remands Action Based on Equity Even Though Removal Was Proper on Bankruptcy Issue

In this federal court case, the plaintiffs commenced an action against various defendants for the alleged asbestos exposure and development of mesothelioma for decedent, George Fenicle.  Following decedent’s death, plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Boise Cascade Company and OfficeMax (“Defendants”). The defendants subsequently removed the matter to federal court under 28 U.S.C. 1441, for putative federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. 1452, as a bankruptcy-related action. The plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was improper since the defendants did not seek approval from all …

Continue Reading

Claim Representatives For Filing Bankruptcy Trust Claims Have No Standing To Sue Bankruptcy Trusts For Suspending Claims

Plaintiff Mandelbrot Law Firm specialized in preparing and filing asbestos personal injury claims  to various bankruptcy trusts. In 2002, one such trust, the Delaware Trusts, suspended all payment of claims from claimants who the plaintiff represented, due to proceedings in California regarding allegedly fraudulent claims filed by the plaintiff.  The plaintiff then filed this declaratory judgment, arguing that this decision was unauthorized and in violation of the Trusts’ distribution procedures, and that he lost fees. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack …

Continue Reading

The High Court Down Under Allows Earlier Cause of Action Accrual in Lawsuits Claiming Inevitable Onset of Mesothelioma

On October 7, 2015, the High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal of a negligent employer and held that where the contraction of mesothelioma was an inevitable result of asbestos exposure, the cause of action accrues shortly after the initial exposure as opposed to when the symptoms manifest.

This ruling came from a case in which the plaintiff inhaled asbestos fibers in the course of his employment. The plaintiff’s mesothelial cells changed quickly after the initial exposure, but the symptoms were not apparent until 2013 …

Continue Reading