Mealey's Asbestos

  • February 21, 2017

    Justice Finds Allegations Keep Asbestos Case In In Extremis Docket

    NEW YORK — A man’s recollection that he visited breweries and food-processing plants in New York City provides a sufficient anchor to the city for inclusion in the court’s in extremis asbestos docket, a New York justice held Jan. 5, sources told Mealey Publications (Richard Trumball v. Adience Inc., f/k/a BMI Inc., No. 190084/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • February 22, 2017

    House Judiciary Committee Passes Reintroduced FACT Act

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congress’ latest measure aimed at requiring asbestos trusts to make claimant information public and provide the information to defendant companies in asbestos lawsuits was approved Feb. 15 by the House Judiciary Committee after being reintroduced by a Texas Republican a week earlier.

  • February 22, 2017

    Jurisdictional Discovery, More Specific Allegations Required, Judge Says

    NEW ORLEANS — Plaintiffs in an asbestos exposure case are entitled to further discovery in an attempt to muster the difficult support they need to overcome jurisdictional issues against one defendant and must amend their complaint to allege more specifics against a second company, a federal judge in Louisiana held Feb. 16 (Robin Murphy, et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al., No. 15-5566, E.D. La., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21979).

  • February 22, 2017

    Evidence Falls Short In Case Against Auto Maker, Magistrate Judge Says

    WILMINGTON, Del. — Testimony that a man worked with gaskets during an engine overhaul lacks any reference to who manufactured the gaskets or whether they contained asbestos, a federal magistrate judge in Delaware held Feb. 16 in recommending summary judgment based on the lack of triable issues (In re:  Asbestos Litigation, Charlevoix, et al. v. CBS Corp., et al., No. 15-726, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22590).

  • February 21, 2017

    Proximity Lacking In Take-Home Asbestos Case, Delaware High Court Says

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A judge properly granted five defendants summary judgment after finding insufficient evidence that either a father or husband worked in proximity to asbestos-containing products, the Delaware Supreme Court held Feb. 6 (In re Asbestos Litigation, Wayne Reed, et al. v. Asbestos Corporation Limited, et al., No. 387, 2016, Del. Sup.).

  • February 21, 2017

    Judge Reduces $22 Million Asbestos Damages Award, Nixes Recklessness Finding

    NEW YORK — A plaintiff must agree to a reduced asbestos award of $7 million from $22 million and discontinue or drop his recklessness claim or face a new trial on those issues, a New York justice held Feb. 14  (Frank Gondar v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., No. 190079-2015, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • February 21, 2017

    Justice: Talc Case Lacks New York City Anchor For In Extremis Inclusion

    NEW YORK — An asbestos-tainted talc case is not entitled to inclusion in the court’s trial preference system because the mere allegation of exposure — absent a link to a product or defendant — provides no anchor to New York City, a New York justice held Feb. 3 (In Re:  Leslie Fogel and Catherine Fogel v. American International Industries for Clubman, et al., No. 190093/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • February 21, 2017

    Kentucky Court Finds State University Immune To Asbestos Tort Action

    FRANKFURT, Ky. — A state university is a state agency ordinarily entitled to sovereign immunity and thus any action seeking damages arising from exposure to asbestos must be filed in the Kentucky Board of Claims, a Kentucky appeals court held Feb. 3 (Lewis Williamson v. Morehead State University and Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 15-CI-90186, Ky. App., 2017 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 109).

  • February 21, 2017

    Justice Finds Allegations Keep Asbestos Case In In Extremis Docket

    NEW YORK — A man’s recollection that he visited breweries and food-processing plants in New York City provides a sufficient anchor to the city for inclusion in the court’s in extremis asbestos docket, a New York justice held Jan. 5, sources told Mealey Publications (Richard Trumball v. Adience Inc., f/k/a BMI Inc., No. 190084/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • February 21, 2017

    California Top Court Won’t Review Challenges To Asbestos Defense Verdict

    LOS ANGELES — The California Supreme Court on Feb. 1 declined to hear a case challenging a verdict where the jury found exposure to asbestos related to the defendant’s conduct, but found no negligence, according to its docket (LAOSD Asbestos Cases, No. S238684, Calif. Sup., 2017 Cal. LEXIS 924).

  • February 17, 2017

    Justice Finds No Evidence Of Continuity Of Ownership, Grants Judgment

    NEW YORK — Despite the potential unfairness given the facts of a case, asbestos plaintiffs must demonstrate a continuity of ownership to show that an asset purchase constituted a de facto merger until a New York appellate court changes the standard, a New York justice held Feb. 15 in granting summary judgment (Ivette Montanez and Peter Montanez v. American Honda Motors Co. Inc., et al., No. 190409/2014, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 493).

  • February 16, 2017

    Arizona High Court Considers Asbestos Take-Home Exposure Case

    PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court on Feb. 14 agreed to hear a woman’s case claiming that state law imposes liability for take-home asbestos exposures, according to the court’s docket (Mary Quiroz, et al. v. Alcoa Inc., et al., No. 16-0248, Ariz. Sup.; 2016 AZ S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 221).

  • February 15, 2017

    Judge: Jury Should Decide If Asbestos Was Specified By Accused Company

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — A federal judge in South Carolina on Feb. 13 denied a valve company’s motion for summary judgment, holding that it must be left to a jury to decide whether the company specified the use of asbestos in its valves and whether that asbestos was a substantial cause of a former naval officer’s mesothelioma (James Wilson Chesher, et al. v. 3M Company, No. 15-cv-2123, D. S.C., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20706).

  • February 10, 2017

    Dearth Of Causation Evidence Dooms Most Of Widow’s Claims, Magistrate Says

    WILMINGTON, Del. — A widow’s failure to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her late husband was exposed to the asbestos products of three defendant companies is fatal to all but one of her claims against the companies, a Delaware federal magistrate judge ruled Feb. 8 in recommending that the companies be awarded summary judgment on most of her causes of action (Marguerite MacQueen v. Union Carbide Corporation, et al., No. 13-831, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17645).

  • February 8, 2017

    New York Justice Orders Production Of Data In Native Format, Metadata

    NEW YORK — Production of electronic documents in an asbestos dispute do not satisfy discovery requests where they are not in the requested format and lack metadata, a New York justice held in an opinion posted Feb. 3 (All Craft Fabricators Inc. v. ATC Assoc. Inc.,, No. 156897/13, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.; 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 323).

  • February 8, 2017

    Parties Settle Case After Judge Excludes Testimony From Diagnosing Doctors

    NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana dismissed a case on Feb. 3 after being informed the parties settled, just a day after the judge excluded treating physicians from offering expert testimony regarding asbestos’s role in the plaintiff’s asbestosis and lung cancer (Jesse Frank Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-2401, E.D. La.).

  • February 7, 2017

    Court Affirms Judgments In Take-Home Asbestos Automobile Parts Case

    SAN FRANCISCO — A man’s evidence in a take-home exposure case alleges possible exposure from asbestos-containing automobile parts but never crosses into the probable, a California appellate panel held Feb. 2 (Billy S. Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, et al., No. A131975, Calif. App., 1st Dist., 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 762).

  • February 7, 2017

    Court Must Reinstate Patent, Take-Home Asbestos Claims, Plaintiffs Argue

    MADISON, Wis. — Plaintiffs in six asbestos cases asked the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal on Jan. 26 to reinstate their asbestos cases, arguing that negligence law applies to a patent licensor and that take-home exposures do not fall under the state’s workers’ compensation law (Janet Pecher, et al. v. Owens-Illinois Inc., No. 16‐1799, Dianne Jacobs, et al. v. Rapid American and Weyerhaeuser Co. and Owens-Illinois Inc., No. 16‐2376, Katrina Masephol v. Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., No. 16‐2377, Robert Sydow, et al. v. Owens-Illinois Inc., No. 16-2378, Kathy Boyer v. Owens-Illinois Inc., No. 16‐2379, Janice Seehafer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., et al., No. 16‐2380., 7th Cir.).

  • February 7, 2017

    Judge Finds Residency, Mesothelioma Diagnosis Crucial In Applying Tennessee Law

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — While a man’s asbestos occurred in two states, his residence, diagnosis and treatment in Tennessee warrant imposing its law over that of Virginia, a Rhode Island judge held Jan. 18 (Harold Wayne Murray and Janice M. Murray v. 3M Co., et al., No. 2016-0151, R.I. Super., Providence).

  • February 7, 2017

    Maryland Court Affirms Judgment In Take-Home Asbestos Case

    BALTIMORE — Neither the existence of changing rooms nor the availability of a commercial laundry warrants imposing a duty to warn about the dangers occupational asbestos posed to family members, a Maryland appeals court affirmed Jan. 27 (Daniel E. Hiett, et ux. v. AC&R Insulation Co. Inc., No. 2564 September Term 2015, Md. Spec. App.).