Real-Time Court Decisions and Other Developments in Asbestos Litigation.
The court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Eugene Mark, on the basis of Daubert. After this order, defendant Ford filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss, and defendant Honeywell filed a motion to reconsider the court’s summary judgment order; both were made pursuant to the court’s order excluding …
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, Joseph J. Welter, partner and Co-Chair of Goldberg Segalla’s Toxic Torts Practice Group, will be speaking at “Litigating Asbestos Cases in Today’s Environment” presented by Perrin Conference in New York City. This is Perrin’s 5th annual conference and will feature insight from seven New York Judges, as well as the …
In a case of first impression under New Jersey’s Product Liability Act, a Middlesex County, New Jersey jury returned a defense verdict in a mesothelioma case involving a 60-year-old plaintiff who claimed exposure to cosmetic talcum powder products in the 1950s-1970s that were allegedly contaminated with trace amounts of asbestos. The jury found that Shulton, …
The plaintiff was employed by Ferro Engineering for four years, and alleged that during this time he was exposed to products containing asbestos. Forty-one years after this employment he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and sued Ferro under several theories including negligence. Ferro filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the …
The plaintiff commenced this wrongful death claim alleging the decedent was exposed to asbestos while J.T. Thorpe & Sons was performing refractory work around boilers. Thorpe moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient evidence decedent was actually in the vicinity of Thorpe employees working with refractory materials. The court concluded that …
Six cases were decided in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all started in the Northern District of Ohio, and were transferred to the MDL 875 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In all six cases, the plaintiffs brought claims against various shipowners represented by Thompson Hine LLP, and all …
On Monday, November 2, 2015, Toyota Australia brought suit in the Australian Federal Court against several distributors of counterfeit brake pads that contain asbestos. According to reports, thousands of fake brake pads have been imported into Australia illegally. Currently, Toyota is taking steps in an effort to prevent these suppliers from selling more of these …
In this case, the plaintiff, William Aubin, claimed he was exposed to asbestos from SG-210, an asbestos product used in items such as joint compound and texture sprays that was manufactured by Union Carbide Corporation. Following trial, a jury returned a verdict of $6.6 million finding Union Carbide was liable, in part, under the plaintiff’s …
The plaintiff in this case was diagnosed with mesothelioma and filed claims for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium against, among others, Union Carbide and Elementis Chemicals, as successor-in-interest of Harrison & Crosfield, Pacific, Inc., and certain related entities. The plaintiff submitted three theories of liability: strict liability (design defect under the consumer expectations …
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment to two defendants – Lockheed and UTC, as successor-in-interest to Pratt & Whitney. Summary judgment was affirmed as to Lockheed based on the government contractor defense. Lockheed introduced two affidavits establishing that the Untied States approved specifications requiring the use of asbestos in government aircraft. This …