Exclusion of the Plaintiff’s Causation Experts Leads to Grant of Summary Judgment in Merchant Marine Mesothelioma Matter

LOUISIANA — The plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma while working for Radcliff Materials, a predecessor of Dravo Basic Materials Company (DBMC). Prior to filing suit in Louisiana, The plaintiff had filed a products liability suit against several defendants in California including DBMC. The plaintiff dismissed DBMC from the California suit based on jurisdictional issues. The plaintiff worked as an oiler onboard a dredge known as the Avocet in 1973 for approximately 6 weeks. His primary job duties included reading gauges, …

Continue Reading

Delaware Court Upholds Jury Verdict in Favor of Auto Mechanic

DELAWARE — Following up on a prior ACT post, where a Delaware jury returned a verdict of over $40 Million in favor of the widow of a deceased auto mechanic, defendant, who was attributed a liability share of 20 percent, filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and a motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, remittitur. The defendant argued among other things, that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent and the amount of damages …

Continue Reading
Mesothelioma

New NYCAL Coordinating Judge Grants First Causation-Based Summary Judgement

NEW YORK — New York City Asbestos Litigation Coordinating Judge Manuel J. Mendez has granted a causation based summary Judgment motion to defendant, American Biltrite, Inc. (ABI). With respect to ABI, the plaintiff, Thomas Mantovi, alleged exposure from Amtico from vinyl asbestos floor tile that he encountered as a bystander while performing inspections as an insurance agent from 1967 through 1979. Specifically, he testified that he was exposed to asbestos by breathing in dust during insurance inspections of commercial and residential sites where Amtico asbestos …

Continue Reading

Honeywell Settles Mesothelioma Case Before Jury Verdict

ARKANSAS — An Arkansas jury awarded plaintiff Ronald Thomas $18.5 million after a three week trial against Honeywell International, successor-in-interest to Bendix. However, prior to the verdict Honeywell and the plaintiff agreed to settle claims for an undisclosed amount. The plaintiff alleged that he developed mesothelioma in part due to his work at a brake shop in Little Rock from 1971-83, where he sometimes performed up to a dozen brake changes daily.  The jury assigned 18.75 percent of fault to Honeywell, 5 percent to Thomas, …

Continue Reading

Trial Preference Granted on Appeal for Kidney Cancer Plaintiff

CALIFORNIA — A three judge appellate panel in California issued a writ of mandate requiring the trial court to vacate its prior order, and to grant oetitioner/olaintiff David Ellis’ motion for trial preference. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered from asbestos-related kidney cancer and pleural disease, and filed suit against numerous defendants in 2016. After having his case set for trial and then continued on four occasions due to lack of courtrooms, the plaintiff moved for trial preference under California Code of Civil Procedure section …

Continue Reading

Jury Awards $5.1 Million to Widow After Finding Valve Company Breached its Implied Warranty

A jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict against valve defendant Fisher Controls International LLC (Fisher) on January 24. The plaintiffs filed suit against Fisher and other defendants alleging that Thomas Glenn developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while working as a pipe fitter for Duke Power. Mr. Glenn’s work involved the use of asbestos containing gaskets used in valves and pumps. Mr. Glenn also worked in the vicinity of others working on Fisher valves. He passed away in February of 2015 and …

Continue Reading

$2.38 Million Verdict Entered Against Union Carbide in New Jersey

A Middlesex County jury awarded $2.38 million in compensatory damages to the widow of a factory worker in an asbestos lawsuit against Union Carbide. The jury declined to award punitive damages. The decedent was not deposed before he passed and Plaintiff relied on the testimony of two co-workers. Counsel for Union Carbide contended there was no product identification as the only witnesses stated that the decedent used another manufacturer’s product.…

Continue Reading

Brake Manufacturer Granted Summary Judgment on Basis of De Minimis Exposure

DELAWARE – The plaintiff Elizabeth Alice Dove (Plaintiff) alleges that her father Gus Dove (Mr. Dove) developed lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases because of his exposure to a variety of asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, or supplied by the defendants – among them, Honeywell – during the course of Mr. Dove’s career and through shade-tree mechanic work. Honeywell successfully moved for summary judgment under Rule 56(a) on multiple grounds, the primary one involving insufficient product identification under Delaware’s “Product Nexus Standard.”

Mr. Dove gave discovery …

Continue Reading

New Jersey Supreme Court Agrees to Review Duty to Warn Ruling

NEW JERSEY — In Arthur G. Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. et al, various defendants convinced the New Jersey Supreme Court to review a ruling that manufacturers may be held liable for failure to warn about the risks of asbestos-containing components or replacement parts in their products even if they did not build or distribute the parts.

The question before the Supreme Court in the matter is, “In a products liability case arising out of exposure to asbestos, does a manufacturer have a duty to …

Continue Reading

Lack of Detail in Product Identification Leads to Grant of Fourteen Summary Judgment Motions

DELAWARE — The plaintiff William Johansen alleged that he developed mesothelioma from his work with various pumps, valves, and other equipment aboard Naval vessels, at shipyards, and at a pulp mill. Fourteen defendants filed summary judgement motions arguing insufficient causation. The parties agreed that maritime law applied to all of the plaintiff’s Naval/sea-based claims and that Washington law applied to his land based claims. Under maritime law, a plaintiff must demonstrate exposure to the defendant’s product and proof that the product was a substantial factor …

Continue Reading