We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

Mealey's Asbestos

  • March 19, 2019

    Supreme Court Rejects Bare-Metal Defense In Maritime Setting

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A bare-metal manufacturer that knew or had reason to know that its product would create a hazardous condition when used with third-party asbestos-containing products can be held liable under maritime law for failing to warn about the danger, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held March 19 (Air and Liquid Systems Corp, et al. v. Roberta G. DeVries, et al., No. 17-1104, U.S. Sup.).

  • March 15, 2019

    Asbestos Allegations Predate Washington Retailer Liability Limits, Judge Says

    TACOMA, Wash. — A son’s claim that his father purchased asbestos-containing products in the early 1980s from a defendant’s successor can reasonably be read as coming before Washington enacted limits on retailer liability in July 1981, a federal judge in the state held March 13 (Eric Klopman-Baerselman, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 18-5536, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40730).

  • March 14, 2019

    Johnson & Johnson: Failure To Disclose Talc Samples’ Origins Warrants Mistrial

    ALAMEDA, Calif. — A plaintiff attorney’s own father collected Johnson & Johnson baby powder samples that produced positive tests for asbestos, a fact that was never disclosed in an “outrageous abuse of discovery” with an impact on the national litigation that “cannot be overstated,” the company argues in a March 11 motion for mistrial.  But in a March 13 response, the plaintiffs tell the court that the company knew of the man’s identity for months before making its motion.  The jury on March 13 awarded $29,491,000 in the case (Teresa Leavitt, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. RG1788401, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.).

  • March 14, 2019

    California Jury Hits Johnson & Johnson With $29.4M Verdict In Asbestos-Talc Case

    ALAMEDA, Calif. — A California jury on March 13 hit Johnson & Johnson with a $29,491,000 verdict and 98 percent of the liability in a case alleging that its consumer talc products contained asbestos (Teresa Leavitt, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. RG1788401, Calif. Super., Alameda Co.). VIDEO FROM THE TRIAL IS AVAILABLE

  • March 13, 2019

    Judge: North Carolina Premises Owners Escape Asbestos Suit

    GREENSBORO, N.C. — A woman never demonstrates that two premises owners controlled subcontractors’ work, let alone that the work exposed her decedent to asbestos, a federal judge in North Carolina held March 11 in granting summary judgment (Dorothy E. Smith, et al. v. 3M Co., et al., No. 16-379, M.D. N.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38410).

  • March 13, 2019

    Justice: Siding Maker Can’t Escape New York Asbestos Suit

    NEW YORK — Testimony that a company did not manufacture asbestos-containing siding during the times in question is a credibility issue that does not warrant summary judgment, a New York justice held March 1 (George Maridakis, et al. v. Amchem Products Inc., et al., No. 190225/2015, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • March 13, 2019

    Judge: Removal Of Asbestos Case Proper Based On Navy Contracts, Knowledge

    SAN FRANCISCO — Evidence regarding the U.S. Navy’s precise control over asbestos-related warnings and its knowledge regarding the dangers warranted removal of the case, a federal judge in California held March 11 (Debbie L. Viale, et al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al., No. 19-38, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38828).

  • March 12, 2019

    5th Circuit Affirms Remand Of Negligence Asbestos Case, Questions Precedent

    NEW ORLEANS — Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals precedent requires the conclusion that a shipyard’s alleged lack of safety measures does not provide grounds for removing an asbestos negligence action, but that precedent should face en banc scrutiny, a panel of the court said March 11 (James A. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., et al., No. 18-30652, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7109).

  • March 12, 2019

    House Holds Hearings On Consumer Products As Asbestos Threat Looms

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — While the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform is holding hearings on March 12 on federal oversight of consumer products, outgoing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said federal agencies are not equipped to ensure that consumer products are free of asbestos and other hazards and must improve.

  • March 11, 2019

    Evidence Established Employer’s Asbestos Liability, Plaintiffs Tell Texas Court

    AUSTIN, Texas — An employer cannot rely on its failure to test for the presence of asbestos as proof that it could not have known that an employee would experience exposures sufficient to cause mesothelioma, plaintiffs told the Texas Supreme Court on March 7.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the court on the same day that allowing the suit threatened to undermine the state’s workers’ compensation system (The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Vicki Lynn Rogers, et al., No. 18-0056, Texas Sup.).

  • March 8, 2019

    New York Justice Finds Allegations Keep Floor-Tile Makers In Asbestos Action

    NEW YORK — Merely pointing to gaps in the evidence does not warrant summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff adequately identified two tile makers’ asbestos-containing products and described the environment around their use, a New York justice held in an opinion posted March 7 (Michael N. Marzigliano, et al. v. Amchem Products Inc., et al., No. 190134/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 859).

  • March 7, 2019

    Expert’s Exclusion Dooms FELA Asbestos Case, Judge Says

    HOUSTON — An expert’s causation opinion confuses association and causation and appears to be based on his own untested methodology, and after excluding it, a plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence linking asbestos to his colon cancer even under the lowered standard applied in Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) cases, a federal judge in Texas held March 5 (John Collins v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 17-3572, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34712).

  • March 6, 2019

    Workers’ Comp Insurers Want Voice In Montana Failure-To-Warn Asbestos Case

    HELENA, Mont. — Montana’s top court on Feb. 19 agreed to consider whether a workers’ compensation insurer can be held liable for failing to warn W.R. Grace Co. employees about the dangers of asbestos.  Two insurers seeking to escape similar liability on March 5 asked the court for permission to file amicus curiae briefs, saying that any ruling would likely impact them (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).

  • March 6, 2019

    English Court Finds Employer Liable For Take-Home Asbestos Exposures

    LONDON — A court on Feb. 11 found an employer liable, which counsel for the plaintiff described as the first take-home asbestos exposure liability ruling in the United Kingdom (John Carey v. Vauxhall Motors Limited, No. WC2A 2LL, England High, QBD).

  • March 5, 2019

    United Kingdom, Not New Jersey, Proper Place For Asbestos Suits, Court Says

    TRENTON, N.J. — Four New Jersey asbestos suits alleging that automobile mechanics suffered asbestos exposure belong in the United Kingdom, where the exposures allegedly took place, unless that country’s courts refuse jurisdiction, a New Jersey appellate court held March 5 (Raymond Rebbeck, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al., No. A-4989-16T1, David Harvey, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al., No. A-4990-16T1, Roger Williams, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., et al., No. A-4991-16T1 Leslie James Gardner v. Honeywell International Inc., et al., No. A-3204-17T1, N.J. Super., App. Div., 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 489).

  • March 5, 2019

    New York Justice Finds Allegations Keep Floor-Tile Maker In Asbestos Action

    NEW YORK — Merely pointing to gaps in the evidence does not warrant summary judgment in a case where the plaintiff adequately identified a company’s asbestos-containing products and described the environment around their use, a New York justice held in an opinion posted March 1 (Michael N. Marzigliano, et al. v. Amchem Products Inc., et al., No. 190134/2017, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).

  • March 5, 2019

    Judge Says Questions Regarding Bare-Metal Defense Overcome Summary Judgment

    PHILADELPHIA — Questions regarding the applicability of the bare-metal defense and a man’s exposure overcome summary judgment, and the Pennsylvania federal judge presiding over the case said Feb. 14 that he would not address a successor-in-interest argument the defendant appears to have sat on in an attempt to spring a surprise on the plaintiffs (Obediah Walker III, et al. v. Viad Corp., No. MDL 875, 16-215, E.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24614).

  • March 5, 2019

    Judge Grants Plaintiff’s Request For Dismissal Of Asbestos Action

    BALTIMORE — The early stage of the litigation and the death of the injured individual warrants granting a motion to dismiss an asbestos action without prejudice, even if the move is simply an effort to refile in state court with a nondiverse defendant, a federal judge in Maryland held March 1 (David Gichner, et al. v. ArvinMeritor Inc, et al., No. 18-1071, D. Md.).

  • March 4, 2019

    Massachusetts Top Court Says Statute Of Repose Bars Asbestos Cases

    BOSTON — The state Legislature provided an unequivocal six-year statute of repose applicable to asbestos claims, and the Legislature must address any resulting unfairness, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held March 1 in answering a certified question (June Stearns, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., No. SJC-12544, Mass. Sup. Jud.).

  • March 1, 2019

    Judge: Exclusion Of Unreliable Asbestos Causation Opinion Dooms Case

    BOULDER, Colo. — An expert’s handful of hours researching asbestos with little to no information about the plaintiff’s work or exposures renders the testimony unreliable, a federal judge in Colorado held in excluding it and granting a railroad summary judgment on Feb. 21 (Roddy York v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 17-1088, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27644).

Can't find the article you're looking for? Click here to search the Mealey's Asbestos archive.