Multiple Defendants Successful on Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Intentional Tort and Fraud Claims

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 25, 2022

As previously reported on the Asbestos Case Tracker, this matter stems from decedent Callan Cortez’s take-home exposure to asbestos, from his brother, Daniel, who lived with the decedent while he worked at Avondale Shipyards in 1967-68. Most recently, defendants ViacomCBS Inc. (Westinghouse), General Electric Company, and Foster Wheeler, LLC filed motions for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs’ intentional-tort and fraud claims.

Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that …

Continue Reading

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Turbine Manufacturer at Various Power Stations

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, July 22, 2022

In this asbestos-related lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the decedent, Ann Stadtler, developed mesothelioma and died due to take-home exposure to asbestos from her stepfather, Charles Ferguson, with whom she lived from 1948 to 1965. During this time, as part of his employment as a union insulator, Ferguson worked at several different power stations in the New England area.

On November 6, 2019, the plaintiffs served defendant Westinghouse with interrogatories and requests for production of documents …

Continue Reading

Automotive Defendant Obtains Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, July 21, 2022

In this asbestos action, defendant Honeywell International Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal Inc. as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to respond to Honeywell’s motion.

A district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). An Illinois district …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Expert precluded from offering testimony on whether Supplier can be Considered a Manufacturer

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 20, 2022

In this asbestos action, decedent Callen Cortez was diagnosed with mesothelioma following occupational and take-home exposure to asbestos. As relevant to the motion, plaintiff’s complaint alleged that former suppliers and distributors Eagle and McCarty were liable as manufacturers as a “professional vendor,” as they “would package [asbestos-containing] products from other distributors and manufacturers . . . in their own boxes and packaging, and hold out the products as their own.” Defendants moved …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Judgment Covered in Part under Excess Policies, Subject to “All Sums” Allocation

Supreme Court of New York, Monroe County

Meissner v. Ridge Constr., Inc., 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 310

After obtaining a jury trial verdict of $8 million on November 19, 2019, in an action for asbestos exposure in 1970-71 resulting in mesothelioma against Ridge Construction, Inc., a former subsidiary of Eastman Kodak, the plaintiffs filed an action under New York Insurance Law § 3420 (the coverage action) in an effort to collect the judgment under three excess insurance policies issued by certain underwriters at Lloyd’s of …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Decisions Denying Summary Judgment to Floor Tile Manufacturer Reversed

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, July 19, 2022 

On July 19, 2022, the First Department reversed three New York City Asbestos Litigation (“NYCAL”) decisions that denied summary judgment to Defendant, American Biltrite, Inc. (“ABI”), finding that the plaintiffs could not prove specific causation, and thus summary judgment to ABI was in fact warranted. In other words, the plaintiffs were unable able to show that exposure to ABI’s floor tiles were the cause or a contributing factor to the Plaintiffs’ alleged diseases. …

Continue Reading

NYCAL Verdict Against Talc Product Manufacturer Reversed on Causation Grounds

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, July 19, 2022

In 2017, Plaintiff Donna Olson (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), claiming that her lifelong use of J&J talcum powder exposed her to asbestos and caused her to develop mesothelioma. After a 12-week jury trial in 2019, a New York City jury found J&J liable and awarded damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $325 Million. In November 2020, the trial court reduced the award to $120 Million, but affirmed the …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Defense Expert’s Hearsay Statements Granted

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; July 18, 2022

Plaintiffs filed an asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Decedent, Callan Cortez, alleging that Mr. Cortez contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos, and subsequently died. The relevant exposure claimed by Mr. Cortez was take-home exposure from his brother, Daniel, who lived with Mr. Cortez while he worked at Avondale Shipyards from 1967 until 1968.

Danny Joyce, an Avondale industrial hygienist and corporate witness, gave deposition testimony about conversations he had …

Continue Reading

Brake Supplier Permitted to Present Evidence of Fault Against Non-Parties for Apportionment Considerations

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, July 12, 2022

In this asbestos action, the plaintiff Jack Papineau sued various manufacturers alleging that these manufacturers produced asbestos-containing products, which caused plaintiff’s mesothelioma. One of the defendants, Brake Supply, sought indemnification or apportionment from an outside party, Frans-Le South America (“Fras-Le”), alleging that Frans-Le sold Brake Supply asbestos-containing brakes. The court dismissed Brake Supply’s indemnification claims against Frans-Le for a lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the court left the question of …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Granted Due to Railroad Company Defendant’s Untimely Motion for Removal  

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin , July 13, 2022

Plaintiffs Trisha and David Babler filed a lawsuit to recover damages Trisha allegedly sustained as a result of “take-home” asbestos exposure from her father, who was employed at Soo Line Railroad Company (SLR).  Plaintiffs named Sprinkmann Sons Corporation as a defendant “based on inferences that Sprinkmann was either a contractor at the North Fond du Lac SLR facility and/or supplied asbestos-containing materials to SLR for use at that facility.”  

Discovery …

Continue Reading