Newsletter RSS

Mealey's Asbestos

  • April 25, 2018

    Judge Orders Deposition Of Defunct Asbestos Defendant’s Representative

    SAN FRANCISCO — While a couple did not comply with rules governing discovery in a dispute over a company’s failure to disclose a corporate representative, their failure did not alter the outcome or prejudice a defunct shipbuilder’s defense of an asbestos case, a federal judge in California held April 20 (John Newton Jones v. General Electric Co., et al., No. 17-5446, N.D. Calif.).

  • April 25, 2018

    Insurer, Reinsurer Propose Revised Schedule For Asbestos Coverage Dispute

    SYRACUSE, N.Y. — A New York federal magistrate judge on April 23 granted an insurer’s new proposed schedule in an asbestos coverage case with its reinsurer regarding the production of documents (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 15-270, N.D. N.Y.).

  • April 24, 2018

    Justice: Potential Asbestos Siding Purchase Keeps Reseller In New York

    NEW YORK — An asbestos-cement siding reseller’s potential purchase of the product from a New York-based supplier keeps a widow’s mesothelioma case in the state, a justice held in an opinion posted April 13 (Shirley Jo Godfrey, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., No. 190280/2015, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • April 24, 2018

    Pennsylvania Jury Returns Defense Verdict In Asbestos-Pipe Case

    PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania jury on March 23 found that a man suffered exposure to asbestos from a pipe manufacturer’s product but that the company had not acted negligently.  The plaintiff asked the court for a new trial and briefs on the motion are due May 2 (Colleen Schrader, et al. v. Ameron International Inc., et al., No. 16901786, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.).

  • April 24, 2018

    California Jury Returns Defense Verdict For Respirator Manufacturer

    LOS ANGELES — A California judge on April 3 entered a take-nothing judgment, after a jury found no liability on the part of respirator manufacturer 3M Co. in a man’s mesothelioma, sources told Mealey Publications (Angel D. Rigor v. 3M Co., et al., No. BC660976, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).

  • April 24, 2018

    Denial Of Summary Judgment Sends Asbestos Case To New York Jury

    NEW YORK — An asbestos flooring manufacturer fails to eliminate the potential for an architect’s bystander exposure or demonstrate that its products contained only the chrysotile fibers its expert claims could not cause mesothelioma, a New York justice held in an opinion posted April 19 (Tatjana Pogacnik, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., No. 190340/2015, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • April 23, 2018

    Court: Federal Officer Defense Frees Navy Insulation Supplier

    SAN FRANCISCO — The government’s selection of asbestos-containing insulation is enough for the federal officer defense to bar litigation against an insulation supplier, a California court held April 19 (Paula Tarjani, et al. v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., No. A140577, Calif. App., 1st Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2690).

  • April 20, 2018

    County Says Discovery Rule Not Applicable In Former Judge’s Asbestos Action

    HOUSTON — The discovery rule does not apply to a former judge’s asbestos torts claims act action against the county in which he worked, rendering his action untimely, the county told a Texas appeals court on April 18 (Jefferson County, Texas v. Ellarene Farris, et al., No. 01-17-00493-CV, Texas App., 1st Dist.).

  • April 20, 2018

    Companies: Asbestos Claims Waiver Doesn’t Erase Complex Federal Questions

    SAN FRANCISCO — The indivisible nature of asbestos injuries makes separating Navy and non-Navy exposures nearly impossible, and the broad approach to federal officer removal warrants having a federal court address the complex situation, two companies tell the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a brief filed April 17 (Maxine Pelker, et al. v. CBS Corp., et al., No. 18-35114, 9th Cir.).

  • April 19, 2018

    Rhode Island Judge Finds Employer Had Duty To Prevent Household Asbestos Exposure

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — An employer had a duty to prevent household asbestos exposures given federal regulations, company knowledge and the foreseeability of the injury, a judge in Rhode Island held April 16 (Carolyn Marie Nichols, et al. v. Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust, et al., No. PC-2008-1134, R.I. Super., Providence Plantation).

  • April 19, 2018

    Judge: Environmental Asbestos Claims Escape Workers’ Compensation Bar

    MADISON, Wis. — Claims that workers suffered environmental asbestos exposures separate and distinct from their employment, while perhaps ultimately difficult to prove, fall outside the Wisconsin workers’ compensation law, a federal judge in Wisconsin held April 17 while dismissing nuisance claims as time-barred (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., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64002).

  • April 19, 2018

    Judge Allows Common-Law Nuisance Claims Involving Environmental Asbestos Exposure

    MADISON, Wis. — An individual alleging environmental exposures to asbestos as a result of releases from a manufacturing facility does not need to explain the decedent’s employment history, a federal judge in Wisconsin held April 16 in allowing common-law nuisance claims to proceed (Michael D. Kappel, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., No. 17-519, W.D. Wis., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64000).

  • April 19, 2018

    Railroad Wants YouTube Video Excluded From Asbestos Trial

    CLEVELAND — A judge should exclude from a jury trial a YouTube video of ballast cleaners taken well after a man’s alleged exposure to asbestos and at a completely different work site, the railway tells an Ohio trial judge in an April 10 filing (Kevin E. Howell v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., No. CV-15-846529, Ohio Comm. Pls., Cuyahoga Co.).

  • April 19, 2018

    Railroad Wants Dismissal Of Asbestos Case As Sanction For Inflating Damage Number

    CLEVELAND — Failure to disclose that an insurer would not seek subrogation for medical expenses associated with treatment for a man’s asbestos-related lung cancer constitutes an “extraordinary violation” of the rules that cannot be exaggerated and warrants dismissal as a sanction, a railroad tells an Ohio court in an April 11 filing (Kevin E. Howell v. Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., No. CV-15-846529, Ohio Comm. Pls., Cuyahoga Co.).

  • April 19, 2018

    Insurer Seeks Reconsideration Of Reinsurance Duties For $3.2M Asbestos Settlement

    SYRACUSE, N.Y. — In a dispute over whether a reinsurer is obligated to an insurer for more than $3.2 million in reinsurance proceeds for an underlying asbestos settlement, the insurer in an April 3 motion seeks reconsideration of a New York federal judge’s finding of ambiguity in the reinsurance certificate provisions related to expense (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., Nos. 12-00196 & 13-00743, N.D. N.Y.).

  • April 18, 2018

    Judge Denies Discovery Request; Aviation Contractor Escapes Asbestos Case

    SAN FRANCISCO — A couple lacks sufficient evidence tracing a man’s mesothelioma to an aviation contractor’s products, and their conclusory statements regarding the potential existence of evidence do not warrant a continuance or additional discovery, a federal judge in California held April 16 (Joseph Thrash, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., No. 17-1501, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63925).

  • April 18, 2018

    Judge Finds Corporate Ownership Questions Warrant Remand Of Asbestos-Talc Case

    SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Genuine disagreement over the proper owner of a store where a woman allegedly purchased asbestos-tainted consumer talc products creates sufficient questions to defeat claims of fraudulent joinder, a federal judge in South Carolina  held April 16 (Antoine Bostic, et al. v. 3M, et al., No. 18-948, D. S.C.).

  • April 17, 2018

    New York Jury Awards $60M To Mesothelioma Victim’s Family; Boiler Makers Liable

    NEW YORK — A New York jury on April 13 awarded $60 million to the family of a mesothelioma sufferer exposed to asbestos in boilers, sources told Mealey Publications (In re:  New York City Asbestos Litigation, Mary Murphy-Clagett v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., No. 190311/15, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • April 16, 2018

    Defendants Want Asbestos Plaintiffs Precluded From Raising Tobacco-Use Issues

    CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Federal law prevents lung cancer and mesothelioma asbestos plaintiffs from arguing or presenting evidence that they lacked sufficient warning about the dangers tobacco use posed, four defendants told a West Virginia judge on April 13 (In re: Asbestos Litigation, No. 03-C-9600, W.Va. Cir., Kanawa Co.).

  • April 16, 2018

    Shipbuilder Appeals After Judge Finds Claims Outside Navy Asbestos Mandate

    NEW ORLEANS — Nothing in the U.S. Navy’s mandate to use asbestos-containing products prevented a shipbuilder from warning employees or instituting safety measures to prevent a woman’s take-home exposures, a federal judge in Louisiana held April 11 in remanding a case.  The shipyard appealed the decision April 12 (Linda Guillot v. Avondale Industries Inc., et al., No. 17-7666, E.D. La.).