An Erie County, New York court has issued a decision on damages in a default action where damages and liability were uncontested following a two-day bench trial in an asbestos case involving Joseph Muir, a 58-year-old man living with mesothelioma. Defendant Hedman Resources, Ltd. was the only remaining defendant. Hedman had been served with the summons and complaint pursuant to alternative service granted by the court two years earlier. Hedman never appeared in the action and was in default at the time of the trial. …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Valve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment on Bare Metal Defense
In this NYCAL case, it was alleged that the plaintiff, Mark Ricci, was exposed secondhand to asbestos from his father’s air conditioning and ventilation work. Aldo Ricci (Aldo), Mark Ricci’s father, testified that he was exposed to asbestos from working near others working on Crane Co. valves. Crane moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove he was exposed to asbestos from any asbestos-containing product manufactured or supplied by Crane. It was Crane’s position that it should be entitled to summary judgment …
Continue ReadingMotion to Consolidate Trials Granted
The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate separate actions into three separate groups for joint trial. The court noted that as to the three groups, all of the plaintiffs are represented by the same law firm, are in the same phase of discovery, and the plaintiffs allege the same type of cancer. The court granted the motion, finding “…that the trials in each of the groups involve common questions of law and fact and that consolidation of these cases into the three groups will not …
Continue ReadingClutch Manufacturer Makes Prima Facie Showing of Entitlement to Summary Judgment
In this New York case out of Nassau County, the plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure to various products while working as a truck mechanic from the late 1950s to the mid 1990s. The plaintiff testified at his deposition that he removed and installed Eaton clutches on trucks from 1961 to 1970. Eaton moved for summary judgment and attached the affidavit of Roger Hobbie, who was employed in various capacities at Eaton from 1959 to 1997. In his affidavit, Mr. Hobbie stated that between 1959 until the …
Continue ReadingDefendants Fail to Make Prima Facie Entitlement to Summary Judgment Since They Failed to Show Their Products Could Not Have Contributed to Decedent’s illness or Death
In this case, the decedent alleged exposure to asbestos while working at Republic Steel from the early 1960s through the early 1970s. It is claimed he was exposed to insulation materials that were removed and installed in his vicinity while he was a laborer and to materials used to make “hot tops” while a crane operator. Defendants Insulation Distributors, Inc. (IDI), Beazer East, and Ferro Corporation all moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove that the decedent, who died prior to …
Continue ReadingInsurer Claims that Firm Overbilled by $3M in Asbestos Lawsuits
On Monday, October 5, 2015 a Swiss Re insurer filed suit in a California federal court claiming that a law firm billed $3 million extra in several asbestos lawsuits. Initially, Westport Insurance Corp. launched an investigation into Vasquez Estrada & Conway LLP’s billing practices after it became suspicious of a firm partner’s estimates for defending Hill Brothers Chemical Co.
In the complaint, the insurer alleges that Vasquez Estrada attorneys billed insurers more than $9 million for two years of work defending Hill Brothers, $6 million …
Continue ReadingPre-Judgment Interest Above Policy Limits Recoverable Under Pennsylvania Law
General Refractories Company (GRC) has been named as a defendant in over 30,000 asbestos lawsuits since 1978. In 2002, GRC tendered to it excess carriers, including Travelers Casualty (Travelers) and Surety Company (formerly The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company) under a 1985-86 policy. Travelers denied coverage under an asbestos exclusion. GRC proceeded to settle many of the underlying claims and pursued coverage from Travelers. In March 2015, the United States District Court ruled that the asbestos exclusion was unenforceable, leaving only a calculation of damages …
Continue ReadingWife’s Testimony on Decedent’s Use of Brake Product and Expert Causation Testimony Held Sufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment
In this federal court case, decedent Richard Bell alleged exposure to asbestos while performing car maintenance from 1964 through the late 1970s. Defendant Honeywell, as successor of Bendix, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent’s wife’s deposition testimony that the decedent used Bendix brakes with the word “asbestos” on the packaging was hearsay; that the testimony could not be used against it to oppose summary judgment since it was taken prior to Honeywell becoming a party; and that the plaintiff failed to show the …
Continue ReadingAsbestos Firm Ordered to Turn Over Client Information in Garlock RICO Case
U.S. District Judge Graham Mullen affirmed a previous judge’s refusal to quash subpoenas issued by Garlock Sealing Technologies to 29 law firms, including Baron & Budd, Brayton Purcell, and Williams Kherker Hart Boundas. Garlock argued that the client records sought from these firms could help establish a pattern of racketeering by Belluck & Fox. Though Judge Mullen agreed with Belluck & Fox’s assertion that the discovery requests were broad, he noted, “[y]et, so is the fraud in which Plaintiffs are alleged to have engaged.”
In …
Continue ReadingPhiladelphia Federal Judge Puts Hold on a Dozen Asbestos Claims by Formerly Bankrupt Plaintiffs
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno ordered a stay on a dozen nearly-identical asbestos claims brought by plaintiffs who had previously sought bankruptcy protection. Judge Robreno stated in all of them that the plaintiffs’ trustees must be given the choice of either pursuing or abandoning the claims.
In one such case, the plaintiff was a ship worker who had filed an asbestos claim in 2001, followed by a bankruptcy action in 2003. His claim, however, was not included as part of …
Continue Reading