In a short decision, the Connecticut Superior Court denied summary judgment to a defendant who submitted proof that the plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos from its equipment and that it cannot be held liable for another manufacturer’s asbestos-containing product. The court relied on the broad allegations in the complaint and concluded that the defendant disproved a theory not alleged in the complaint and apparently tried to shift the burden on the alleged theories: “Given the broad allegations in the complaint, that the defendants, through their agents and employees, mined, processed, manufactured, designed, tested, and/or packaged various asbestos-containing products, and supplied, distributed, delivered, marketed, and/or sold said asbestos-containing products to the employer(s) of the plaintiff or to others working at the various jobsites in Connecticut where the plaintiff was employed, or to third persons who, in turn, delivered and sold such products and materials to such employers or to others working at such jobsites for use of employees, including the plaintiff, the defendant’s argument does not make it quite clear that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant has improperly attempted to shift the burden to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion is denied.”

Click here for a copy of this decision. 

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

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