WASHINGTON, D.C. — An expert’s testimony regarding testing he performed that found asbestos in talc and in a victim’s lung tissue is unreliable and must be excluded, a federal judge in the District of Columbia said Aug. 5 (Brian Jackson, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 15-1066, D. D.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131298).
TACOMA, Wash. — A federal judge in Washington granted an asbestos automobile parts manufacturer summary judgment Aug. 5; on Aug. 2 plaintiffs told a judge he need not reconsider a ruling finding that a second defendant failed to fully respond to interrogatories (Eric Klopman-Baerselman, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 18-5536, W.D. Wash.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Nonparty insurers create federal jurisdiction in five asbestos personal injury cases against their dissolved insured simply because the company’s receiver changed the case name, a federal judge held July 26 in dismissing the action (Roxanne Falls, et al. v. CBS Corp., et al., Timothy W. Howe, et al. v Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., James Michael Hill v. Advance Auto Parts Inc., et al., Denver D. Taylor, et al. v Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No.19-1948, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124742).
TACOMA, Wash. — No evidence links a man’s mesothelioma to three Navy ship defendants, and an expert’s testimony amounts to the conclusion that everyone who worked at a shipyard experienced exposure and fairs no better, a federal judge in Washington held Aug. 2 in granting summary judgment motions (Marietta Dianne Yaw, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 18-5405, W.D. Wash.).
NEW YORK —A man’s testimony and experts create sufficient questions around whether asbestos and not tobacco use caused his stomach cancer, a New York justice held in an opinion posted Aug. 1 (Manfred Lauke, et al. v. Amchem Products Inc., et al., No. 190425/2014, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
NEW YORK — An order governing New York asbestos litigation provided specific remedies for challenging procedural errors in plaintiffs’ pursuit of punitive damage claims against two companies, but a pretrial attempt at dismissing them is not among the options, a justice said in reinstating a plaintiff’s claims in an Aug. 2 opinion (Richard Carlstrand, et al. v. Aerco International Inc., No. 190194/17, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — In an Aug. 2 statement to Mealey’s Publications, a spokesperson confirmed that New Zealand’s accident insurance program would appeal a July 8 ruling finding that the program covers mesothelioma a woman allegedly contracted after exposure to asbestos brought home by her father on his work clothing (Angela Calver, et al. v. Accident Compensation Corp., CIV 2018-485-951, New Zealand High, Wellington Reg.).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky state jury on Aug. 2 returned a verdict in favor of asbestos-talc defendants Johnson & Johnson and Colgate Palmolive Inc. (Cynthia Hayes, et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., No. 16CI03503, Ky. Dist., Jefferson Co.). VIDEO FROM THE TRIAL IS AVAILABLE.
LOS ANGELES — A consumer attorney’s group on July 30 asked the California Supreme Court to publish an appellate panel opinion finding enough evidence on which a jury could find that a pump manufacturer supplied asbestos-containing replacement parts and that three contractors worked on asbestos-containing products in a man’s vicinity. The panel previously forwarded its June 27 ruling and order after twice denying motions to certify the ruling for publication (Brigitte Schildknegt, et al. v. Air And Liquid Systems Corp. et al., No S257170, Calif. Sup.).
MIAMI — An asbestos case remains too underdeveloped for a determination of whether a plaintiff’s proposed deposition of a corporate representative exceeds the bounds of Florida law, a Florida appeals court held in dismissing a petition seeking a protective order on July 31 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Larry E. Cook, No. 3D19-506, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The former head of claims for an insurer defending an insured’s suit seeking costs associated with battling asbestos cases must sit for deposition, a New York appeals court held July 31 (In the Matter of Linda Martin Barber v. BorgWarner Inc., et al., No. 130 CA-18-00738, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 4th Dept., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5939).
NEW YORK — An order closing a case based on a defect in a removal motion permits a different party’s subsequent removal of the asbestos case; finding otherwise would improperly “elevate form over substance,” a federal judge in New York held July 30 (Francis J. Keating Jr. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 18-12258, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126848).
HOUSTON — An attorney and his former law firm must arbitrate a dispute over the validity of a separation agreement’s arbitration clause’s to a suit involving an asbestos-claim referral fee agreement predating his employment, a Texas appeals court held July 30 (Dennis Weitzel v. Brent Coon, et al., No. 01-19-00015-CV, Texas App., 1st Dist., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 6495).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Attorneys giving opening arguments July 17 in a Kentucky asbestos-talc trial told differing stories about the evidence the jury would hear about talc miners and the millions of consumer talc users (Cynthia Hayes, et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., No. 16CI03503, Ky. Dist., Jefferson Co.). VIDEO FROM THE TRIAL IS AVAILABLE.
LONDON — The United Kingdom’s top court on July 26 said principles of justice require open courts, affirmed a nonparty’s right to documents filed in asbestos insurance cases against Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (CIH) and said the trial court could also consider expanding the disclosures (Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v. Mr. Graham Dring, et al., No. 2019 UKSC 38, U.K. Sup.).
AKRON, Ohio — A woman’s claims that an aerospace company controlled the space it leased to a related company, can be liable for its portion of the manufacturing process and knew that regulatory limits on asbestos were insufficient are enough to overcome summary judgment, an Ohio appeals court held June 28 in reversing a trial court (Lynn Blakely, et al. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 28733, Ohio App., 9th Dist., 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 2740).
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee does not recognize the bare-metal defense, and a judge erred in granting judgment on causation and statute of repose grounds, a state appeals court held July 22 in a consolidated asbestos appeal (Carolyn Coffman, et al. v. Armstrong International Inc., et al., Nos. E2017-01986-COA-R3-CV, E2017-02389-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00062-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00063-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00064-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00065-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00066-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00067-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00069-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00071-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00075-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00078-COA-R3-CV, E2017-00995-COA-R3-CV, Tenn. App., 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 357.)
PHILADELPHIA — Lockheed Martin Co. must largely respond to a motion to compel discovery regarding it and its subsidiaries liabilities stemming from a man’s exposure to asbestos in both the U.S. Navy and private employment, a federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania said July 25 (Robert J. Kraus, et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al., No. 18-2119, E.D. Pa.).
NEW YORK — A battle of experts on the issue of causation and remaining factual questions regarding the company’s conduct leave Colgate Palmolive Co. facing a woman’s action claiming that she developed mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos in its cosmetic talc product, a New York justice held July 15 (Chris Moldow v. A.I. Friedman, L.P., et al., No. 190301/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3926).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will have the opportunity to take a stab at the question of whether registering to do business in Pennsylvania creates jurisdiction in the state after the judge overseeing the federal asbestos multidistrict litigation certified a question to it on June 25 (In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, Jackie L. Sullivan, et al. v. A.W. Chesterton Inc., et al., No. MDL 875, 18-3622, E.D. Pa.).