BENTON, Ill. — A circular waiver of asbestos claims appears to exclude only those the plaintiff believes would result in federal officer removal because otherwise it would appear to leave her with no case, a federal judge in Illinois held June 19 (Janice Reinbold, et al. v. Advanced Auto Parts Inc., et al., No. 18-605, S.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102399).
NEWARK, N.J. — A federal judge on June 20 declined to stay discovery into a plaintiff law firm’s referral deal in a New Jersey federal court case alleging that BASF Catalysts LLC and its law firm conspired to destroy evidence of asbestos contamination in talc (Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC., et al., No. 11-1754, D. N.J.).
OTTAWA, Ill. — Expert testimony indicating that companies redacted “significant evidence” of cancer causation from a study on asbestos in the 1940s does not permit a finding of civil conspiracy, an Illinois appeals court held June 19 (James Johnson, et al. v. Pneumo Abex LLC, et al., No. 3-16-0406, Ill App., 3rd Dist., 2018 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1035).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An industrial commission properly relied on Social Security records showing limited income in concluding that a man had not worked for an employer long enough to satisfy the statutory requirements for a workers’ compensation claim and in rejecting expert testimony on causation, a North Carolina appeals court held June 19 (Kathy D. Carroll, et al. v. Johns Manville, et al., No. COA17-1172, N.C. App., 2018 N.C. App. LEXIS 594).
NEW YORK — Ford Motor Co. may be held liable for asbestos claims arising from exposures caused by a television and radio manufacturer whose liabilities were transferred to several entities during various transactions, a New York justice held June 21 (Angela Gonzalez, et al. v. 3M Co., et al., No. 190113/16, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — An asbestos-pipe defendant eliminates potential exposures from an allegedly sham defendant for only a period of the time in question, a federal judge in California held June 19 in remanding a case (Angela D. Espinosa, et al. v. CertainTeed Corp., et al., No. 17-1833, N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — Boiler maker Cleaver-Brooks Inc.’s contention that it didn’t manufacture cast-iron boilers for residential use is not enough to overcome evidence identifying its boilers and asbestos at worksites and the decedent’s inability to state what metal the products he encountered were made of, a New York justice held in an opinion posted June 18 (Paulette Koch Corsentino, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., No. 190044/2015, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2322).
NEW YORK — New York procedural law, not Georgia substantive law, applies to a motion for summary judgment, and a valve maker has not met its burden of negating the possibility that its products contributed to a refurbisher’s asbestos-related injuries, a New York justice held in an opinion posted June 18 (Deborah Miller, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., No. 190257/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2318).
NEW ORLEANS — Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Inc. on June 18 appealed yet another case in which it was denied federal jurisdiction over negligence claims involving its alleged mishandling of, and failure to warn about the dangers of, asbestos the U.S. Navy required for use in its ships (Gregory Brown v. Albert Bossier Jr., et al., No. 18-30730, 5th Cir.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A man’s ability to recall an asbestos-containing brake box’s design clearly indicates that he looked at the packaging and required sending failure-to-warn claims to a jury, a man tells a Florida appeals court in a June 14 reply brief (James W. Coates, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 4D17-1533, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
PHILADELPHIA — A unique evidentiary situation sets three cases apart from others and warranted finding that asbestos maritime defendants had not waived personal jurisdiction defenses, ship owners tell the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a June 6 appellee brief (William D. Schroeder, et al. v. Charles Kurz & Co. Inc., No. 17-3471, 3rd Cir.).
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Generic allegations regarding joint conduct fall short of a civil conspiracy claim, but allegations that an individual talcum powder defendant willfully ignored the dangers of asbestos support a punitive damages claim, a federal judge in North Carolina held June 7 (Lloyd Bell, et al. v. American International Industries, et al., No. 17-111, M.D. N.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96861).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals never directly addressed whether the 2011 amendment broadening the federal officer removal statute brought asbestos claims alleging negligent failure to warn and failure to implement safety standards under federal jurisdiction, a shipbuilder argues in a May 31 brief (Melancon v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 18-30113, 5th Cir.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California appellate court is set to decide whether the state’s workers’ compensation law exclusivity provision bars an action alleging both pre-employment household asbestos exposure and later exposures experienced during employment with the same company (Allen Rudolph, et al. v. Rudolph And Sletten Inc., No. A152601, Calif. App., 1st Dist.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Nothing in late-added allegations supports the conclusion that Crane Co. conspired with the U.S. Navy to hide the dangers of asbestos, a federal magistrate judge in Delaware said June 6 in recommending judgment for the defendant (Marguerite MacQueen v. Warren Pumps LLC, et al., No. 13-831, D. Del., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41749).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware jury on June 8 awarded a widow $40,625,000 in compensatory damages for her husband’s fatal mesothelioma, finding Ford Motor Co. 20 percent liable and following the award up with $1 million in punitive damages (Larry Knecht, et al. v. Borg-Warner Corp., et al., No. N14C-08-164, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
MADISON, Wis. — A jury could not conclude from the presented evidence that household or environmental exposures to asbestos led to two individuals’ mesotheliomas, a federal judge in Wisconsin held June 8 in granting a premises owner summary judgment (Pamela Kilty, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., No. 16-515, Scott Spatz, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., No. 16-726, W.D. Wis.).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should consider immediate en banc review to once and for all conclude that the plain meaning of a 2011 amendment to the federal office removal statute covers asbestos-related negligence claims, a shipyard tells the court in a June 8 brief (Raymond Burkhart Jr. v. Hungtingon Ingalls Inc., et al., No. 18-30458, 5th Cir.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A man cannot challenge exclusion of testimony after failing to properly complain of the issue on appeal and has not demonstrated error in a trial court’s conclusion that evidence of exposure to asbestos was insufficient, a Pennsylvania appeals court held June 12 (Robert E. Eorio, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., No. 1247 EDA 2017, Pa. Super., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2036).
NEW YORK — An affidavit largely details the period after a man’s alleged asbestos exposure and cannot free a printing press company from the lawsuit, a New York justice held in an opinion posted June 12 (Christine Capilets, et al. v. Aerco International, et al., No. 190060/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2207).