In this Rhode Island case, the court granted the plaintiff limited discovery to determine whether certain Dana companies were subject to jurisdiction in Rhode Island: “This Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate as to any ‘substantial’ or ‘continuous and systematic’ business contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island. However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana Holding or Dana Companies.”
Continue ReadingLATEST INSIGHTS
Georgia Court Dismisses Negligent Failure to Warn Claim Against Local Vendor, But Not Manufacturer
In this case, the plaintiff claimed she was exposed to asbestos through laundering her father’s clothing. There was testimony that her father worked with insulated piping manufactured by CertainTeed Corp. and supplied by a local vendor, Davis Meter and Supply Company. The lower court granted summary judgment to CertainTeed and Water Applications Distribution Group, the successor to Davis Meter and Supply, claiming that there was no duty to warn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that there were factual issues regarding CertainTeed’s …
Continue ReadingNorth Carolina Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment
In this case, “plaintiffs allege that his condition resulted from exposure to asbestos during his employment as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family.” The court granted JMM’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that plaintiffs alleged exposure prior to 1983 but denied with respect to any claimed exposure after 1983. This was based on JMM’S acquisition of assets of one of the Johns Manville …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Upholds Rejection of Lay and Expert Witness and Grants Zenith Summary Judgment in Radio Tube Asbestos Case
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the rejection of lay witness testimony as to asbestos content: “As a lay witness, Darby could testify to his observations about the texture of the material, but not to his conclusion that it contained asbestos since a lay witness may not opine about matters not within common knowledge or experience. (Cf. McAlpin, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1308 [lifeguards who recovered body from water were not qualified to express medical opinion on cause of death].) According to Savic, ‘fibrous …
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Reverses $32.5 Million Punitive Damage Award Against BorgWarner, Among Other Rulings
In this wrongful death lawsuit, the decedent was allegedly exposed to asbestos from BorgWarner clutches while working as a security guard at a General Motors assembly plant. The case went to trial and the jury awarded various economic and noneconomic damages to the family of the decedent. During the punitive damages phase of the trial, the plaintiff’s expert testified as to the financial condition of BorgWarner over objections that he improperly considered the financial condition of other separate corporate entities. The jury unanimously awarded punitive …
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Case Against Airplane Manufacturer
In this federal court case, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent was exposed to asbestos while working as a civilian flight mechanic at the Belle Chasse Air Force Base from the early 1950s through 1979. The Boeing Company removed the case to federal court. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case since defendants do not meet the removal requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1442 (a)(1). In the …
Continue ReadingRailroad Companies Awarded Dismissals for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Properly Plead Successor-In-Interest Liability
In these actions, plaintiffs Dennis Franco and James Nelson claimed exposure to asbestos while working, respectively, as a track repairman for the Reading Company and as a machinist for Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). Defendants CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway are successor-in-interest to Reading and Conrail and moved to dismiss several of the plaintiffs’ claims, including common-law negligence and premises liability, arguing that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) provides the exclusive remedy to railroad carrier employees who suffer work-related injuries resulting from the employer’s …
Continue ReadingCourt Analyzes Damages Under FELA
In this case, a railroad worker who was diagnosed with lung cancer filed suit under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) alleging the railroad had exposed him to asbestos as well as other hazardous materials. The jury awarded $8.6 million, finding the railroad negligent and negligent per se, but it also found the decedent was 62 percent at fault due to his smoking history. Following the return of the verdict, the trial court instructed the jury that because of its finding that the railroad had …
Continue ReadingBill Proposed in Pennsylvania House Seeks to Add Fairness and Transparency to Asbestos Actions
On June 30, 2015, Rep. Warren Kampf introduced a bill in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives titled as the “Fairness in Claims and Transparency (FaCT) Act.”
The purposes are listed as providing transparency of claims made against bankruptcy trusts and in the tort system, to facilitate fair and appropriate compensation to plaintiffs while rationally allocating responsibility, to preserve the resources of defendants involved to help promote adequate recoveries for deserving plaintiffs, and to ensure that liabilities properly borne by bankruptcy trusts are not imposed upon …
Continue ReadingPlaintiff’s Expert Industrial Hygienist Found to Be Qualified to Offer Testimony on Non-Specific Levels of Asbestos Exposure
In this federal court case, the decedent, Sally Gros Vedros, is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from laundering her father’s work clothes during the time he worked as a welder at the Avondale shipyard from 1943 to 1976 and from her own work at Avondale in the purchasing department from 1960 to 1963. The defendant, Bayer CropScience, Inc., which was the successor to several companies that formerly were known as Amchem Company, moved to preclude plaintiff’s industrial hygienist, Frank Parker, III, from testifying, …
Continue Reading