In these two cases from Delaware, the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction were denied. Defendants subsequently sought certification of their interlocutory appeals pursuant to Del. Sup. Ct. 42. The court denied defendants’ applications in both cases, pointing to the “substantial issue of material importance” prong of the Rule 42 requirements. The court stated that the Delaware Supreme Court has repeatedly held that denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction does not determine a “substantial issue.” In both cases, …
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Applying Maritime Law, Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment, Refusing to Speculate on Decedent’s Exposure to Pump Defendant’s Products While in the Navy
Plaintiff Josephine Fuoco, as executrix of the estate of Joseph Fuoco, alleged that Mr. Fuoco contracted mesothelioma while serving in the U.S. Navy as a machinists’ mate and as a construction worker. Defendant Warren Pumps moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. Warren did not dispute that its circulating pumps were on the USS Ammen, the ship on which Mr. Fuoco served. However, no fact witness offered testimony regarding Mr. Fuoco’s alleged asbestos exposure on board this shop. Warren was added to the …
Continue ReadingAlabama Supreme Court Reverses Summary Judgment In Favor of Talc Defendant Based on Product Identification, Not Asbestos Content, of Talc
In this case, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded the order granting summary judgment to defendant Vanderbilt Minerals. The Supreme Court included a large summary of facts in its opinion. The decedent, Dansby W. Sanders, died from mesothelioma; prior to his passing, he sued numerous defendants alleging he was exposed to asbestos while working for Mobile Paint Company. Vanderbilt supplied industrial talc under the brand name Nytal to Mobile Paint. Various witnesses testified as to the presence of Nytal supplied by Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt responded …
Continue ReadingNew Jersey Legislation Proposing to Change Statute of Limitations for Mesothelioma Cases
On September 24, 2015, legislation was introduced in New Jersey that would create new Statute of Limitations for civil actions for personal injury and wrongful death caused by mesothelioma.
First, the bill would amend New Jersey statute § 2A:14-2, actions for injury caused by wrongful act, appointment of guardian ad litem. It would add a subsection stating that an action for damages for damages for personal injury from mesothelioma related to exposure to asbestos may be commenced at any time, and that such action shall …
Continue ReadingNYCAL Jury Returns $25 Million Verdict in Mesothelioma Case
A NYCAL jury returned a $25 million verdict in a living mesothelioma case in favor of a 64-year-old mechanic, who worked at a variety of dealerships and gas stations in Colorado and Virginia, among other places, over the years. Defendant Ammco was a manufacturer of brake grinders and was found liable on a failure to warn theory. While the jury also apportioned responsibility to nine of the 10 other companies on the verdict sheet, it found Ammco 86 percent responsible, which in New York makes …
Continue ReadingFederal Court Bench Trial Renders Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Take-Home Exposure Case and Awards Full Medical Expenses
In this federal court case, it was alleged that the decedent, Barbara Bobo, had secondary take-home exposure to asbestos from laundering her husband’s work clothes. Her husband worked at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, operated by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from 1975-1997. Following denial of TVA’s motion for summary judgment, the case went to bench trial, where the court’s findings of fact supported that Mr. Bobo was exposed to asbestos at the plant from items such as insulation, roofing cement, gaskets, and pump packing. In …
Continue ReadingDefendant Establishes Colorable Defense Under Federal Law, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Denied
The plaintiff filed this action in Madison County, Illinois, alleging injury due to asbestos exposure. The defendants, CBS and General Electric, removed the action to federal court under federal officer removal statute 28 U.S.C. 1442. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the court denied. The court cited the United States Supreme Court in listing the three elements required to establish a colorable defense to the use-of-asbestos claim: (1) the United States approved reasonably precise specifications; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications; (3) …
Continue ReadingThe Science Will Drive the Future of Asbestos Litigation. What Do You Think?
What do you think is the single most important factor that will dictate the direction of asbestos litigation across the country, now and in the future? Intelligent minds may differ and we welcome your views. Having practiced in this area for over twenty years, for me the single most important area that will drive this litigation into the future is the science. As the nature of asbestos exposure and diseases continues to evolve after 35-plus years of litigation, the science is more interesting today than …
Continue ReadingApplying Maritime Law, Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions Denied in Case Alleging U.S. Navy Exposure
The plaintiff alleged he developed severe asbestosis as a result of inhaling asbestos while serving in the United States Navy. Three defendants — John Crane, General Electric, and Ingersoll-Rand — moved for summary judgment. In deciding the motion, the court determined whether maritime or Illinois law applied. A plaintiff’s exposure in a products liability claim must meet both a locality test and a connection test in order to apply maritime law. The locality test analyzes whether the tort occurred on navigable water, or, if the …
Continue ReadingMissouri Court, Applying Maryland Law, Upholds $4 Million Verdict, Rejecting Arguments on Expert Challenges, Offsets, and Defective Damages Verdict
In this case, the plaintiff worked as a steamfitter between 1958 and 1983 at a variety of industrial and commercial sites. Of the original 57 defendants, only valve manufacturer Nibco, Inc. went to trial, which resulted in a $4 million plaintiff’s verdict with the trial court applying Maryland law. On appeal, Nibco raised four issues: it should have been granted a directed verdict; the plaintiff’s experts were allowed to offer opinions based on facts not in evidence; the lower court improperly denied setoff rights; and …
Continue Reading