In this federal court case, defendant John Crane Inc. moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, and the court stated that it “may consider the forecast of evidence presented by the movant to be undisputed for the purposes of the present motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).”

In granting Crane summary judgment, the court held: “To prove causation in North Carolina, a plaintiff in a personal injury asbestos case ‘must present “evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.”’ Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir. 1986)). Here, the Defendant has demonstrated that the Plaintiffs lack a forecast of evidence of the decedent’s exposure to an asbestos-containing product of the Defendant sufficient to establish causation under Lohrmann. As noted, the Defendant’s forecast of evidence is undisputed insomuch as the Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Defendant’s motion. As the Plaintiffs are unable to present evidence of causation sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact, the Court concludes that summary judgment in favor of the Defendant is appropriate.”

Read the full decision here.

If you have questions about how this decision may impact your business, please contact:

• Joseph J. Welter (716.566.5457; jwelter@goldbergsegalla.com)
• Jason A. Botticelli (716.566.5460; jbotticelli@goldbergsegalla.com)
• Susan E. Van Gelder (716.566.5463; svangelder@goldbergsegalla.com)
• Or another member of Goldberg Segalla’s Toxic Torts Practice Groups