In this case, “plaintiffs allege that his condition resulted from exposure to asbestos during his employment as mechanics’ helper, maintenance laborer, inspector, construction worker, and salesman, in addition to automotive maintenance work performed on his own personal vehicles and those of his family.” The court granted JMM’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that plaintiffs alleged exposure prior to 1983 but denied with respect to any claimed exposure after 1983. This was based on JMM’S acquisition of assets of one of the Johns Manville entities with respect to the PVC pipe business.
With respect to defendant Formosa, the court scrutinized a variety of theories to hold the company responsible for Johns Manville products and rejected each theory for different reasons. This included alter ego, joint enterprise, concerted action and conspiracy. Ultimately the court granted Formosa’s summary judgment motion: “Summary judgment having been granted on each of plaintiffs’ alleged theories of liability against defendant Formosa, the court dismisses the case against it.”
If you have questions about how this decision may impact your business, please contact: