47 results for 'cat:"Asbestos"'.
J. Herman finds that the trial court properly denied the insurance guaranty association's motion for summary judgment in this asbestos suit. After two of the employer's previous insurers became insolvent, the association assumed its statutory obligation to the employer. The association did not show that the insolvent insurers' policies issued to the employer of the asbestos claimant contained an exclusion for coverage, and the association could not produce the actual policies issued. Further, there was testimony that the association had accepted 60 cases for the employer. Affirmed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Herman, Filed On: May 16, 2024, Case #: 2023-CA-0575, Categories: Insurance, asbestos
J. Fallon denies a request by the widow of a shipyard worker who allegedly died from asbestos exposure, declining to dismiss the indemnity and defense claims filed by the owner of the shipyard and the manufacturer of marine interiors on sea-going vessels. However, the widow reserves the right to re-urge arguments against the shipyard and the manufacturer if two ship-owners do not successfully demonstrate they are entitled to indemnity protection.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Fallon, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv1877, NOS: Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Product Liability, Indemnification, asbestos
J. Buller finds that Alcoa was improperly granted summary judgment in premises liability claims in which an independent contractor died of mesothelioma after working at Alcoa facilities for 20 years because the standard of the unmodified duty of care owed by land possessors should have been used to weigh the claims. Reversed.
Court: Iowa Court Of Appeals, Judge: Buller, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 23-0458, Categories: Premises Liability, asbestos
J. White finds the circuit court improperly entered a judgment in the widow's favor after a jury's verdict finding Pabst liable for $6,986,906 in damages stemming from the widow's husband's death from mesothelioma he contracted from asbestos he encountered working as a pipefitter at Pabst and other locations. In her cross-appeal, the widow correctly argues that the circuit court improperly applied the punitive damages statute such that only Pabst's portion of compensatory damages was doubled, not the total amount of compensatory damages she was awarded. All of Pabst's arguments against the judgment and verdict fail, including those challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury instructions. The case is remanded for the circuit court to enter a new judgment against Pabst totaling $13,419,295. Affirmed in part.
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Judge: White, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 2022AP000723, Categories: Damages, Negligence, asbestos
J. Bryan denies the government's motion to dismiss the family member's complaint that the wife died after being exposed to asbestos fibers while doing laundry for her husband, who was an enlisted navy machinist mate and came into contact with asbestos at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The government argues that the discretionary function exception applies because it covers certain "governmental decision-making from judicial second guessing of legislative and administrative decisions," but it is uncertain if two of the navy's regulations related to asbestos were mandatory directives that required action and if the government failed to follow those directives.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Bryan, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv5701, NOS: Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Government, Wrongful Death, asbestos
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Rushing finds the lower court properly dismissed the consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction. A party to litigation may not immediately appeal a civil contempt order. Instead, the sanctioned party must wait until the final judgment to appeal. The same rule applies in bankruptcy, except the relevant final judgment may be a decree ending the entire case or a decree ending a discrete proceeding within the bankruptcy case. In the two orders underlying the appeals, the bankruptcy court held the asbestos claimants in contempt and sanctioned them for defying a discovery order. Because the contempt and sanctions orders do not terminate a procedural unit separate from the remaining bankruptcy case, they are not final appealable orders. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Rushing , Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 22-1981, Categories: Bankruptcy, Jurisdiction, asbestos
J. Olson finds that the trial court properly denied a beauty product manufacturer’s motion for non-suit in this case wherein the daughter of a deceased hairdresser alleges her mother contracted mesothelioma as a result of decades of being exposed to the company’s asbestos-containing beauty products. The manufacturer failed to provide evidence that the asbestos claim lacked merit. Affirmed in part.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Olson, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: J-A28007-23, Categories: Civil Procedure, Wrongful Death, asbestos
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court improperly awarded damages against the insurer in the underlying asbestos complaint. The court did not err in determining that the primary policy had been exhausted and that the damages awarded arose out of a covered occurrence. However, the notice provided by the employee for the claims was unreasonable and there remain questions of fact whether the employee suffered an injury-in-fact during the excess policies. Vacated.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: CA 22-01590, Categories: Insurance, asbestos
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly granted the merchant vessel owners' motion for summary judgment. The retired mariner, after contracting lung cancer, sued the owner of every vessel he had worked on during his nearly 50-year career on allegations he was exposed to asbestos. The mariner died at the age of 92, with his estate taking over the lawsuit. The estate shows no evidence of asbestos exposure, while its expert reports on causation were properly excluded. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 23-30460, Categories: Evidence, Tort, asbestos
J. Wilson finds that the trial court improperly granted no-evidence summary judgment in favor of the aluminum company in the family members' wrongful death and survival claims involving their loved one's death from asbestosis due to being exposed to asbestos fibers from her husband's work clothes. The family members gave "direct, scientifically reliable proof of causation," specifically that the aluminum plant was the source of the asbestos to which the decedent was exposed. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 14-22-00417-CV, Categories: Evidence, Wrongful Death, asbestos
J. Casper denies a maritime transportation company’s motion to strike a supplemental expert disclosure of a worker, allegedly injured by exposure to asbestos on its vessels, and denies its two motions for summary judgment against the worker. The worker’s higher ranking officers’ statements about asbestos on the vessels is not inadmissable hearsay because the statements relate to matters within the scope of their employment.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Casper, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv11246, NOS: Marine - Contract, Categories: Employment, Maritime, asbestos
J. Blakey partially grants a Navy equipment manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on a Navy veteran’s asbestos claims. The veteran contracted mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos while serving in the Navy, with the manufacturer’s gaskets being a prime source. The court finds for the manufacturer on the veteran’s willful and wanton conduct claim, but allows the veteran’s negligence and strict liability claims to go forward.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Blakey, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv4316, NOS: Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Veterans, Product Liability, asbestos
[Modified.] J. Kelety alters one sentence and denies a rehearing with no change in judgment. The trial court erred in granting a commercial landlord judgment notwithstanding of the verdict on a premises liability claim that a tenant made over undisclosed asbestos contamination. The indemnification clause in the lease did not apply since the jury found the landlord grossly negligent, and a limitation of liability clause cannot shield landlords for a willful violation of statute. The landlord's failure to disclose the asbestos prevented the tenant from knowing about the hazard, and from acting to prevent the financial losses it incurred during remediation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Kelety, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: D079905, Categories: Landlord Tenant, Damages, asbestos
J. Hughes finds that the district court properly dismissed a third-party asbestos abatement company's Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claim against a school after the school terminated its contract with the general contractor when finding asbestos fibers in the school. Although the abatement company could have stated a cause of action under contract law, there is no cause of action under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. In this case, the state is a customer acting in furtherance of its governmental function of maintaining school buildings in good repair and free
from health hazards. Affirmed in part.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court, Judge: Hughes, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: 2023-CC-00794, Categories: Education, Evidence, asbestos
J. Kelety finds that the trial court erred in granting a commercial landlord judgment notwithstanding of the verdict on a premises liability claim that a tenant made over undisclosed asbestos contamination. The indemnification clause in the lease did not apply since the jury found the landlord grossly negligent, and a limitation of liability clause cannot shield landlords for a willful violation of statute. The landlord's failure to disclose the asbestos prevented the tenant from knowing about the hazard, and from acting to prevent the financial losses it incurred during remediation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Kelety, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: D079905, Categories: Landlord Tenant, Damages, asbestos
J. Kirsch rules for the U.S. in claims contending tenants suffered severe injuries due to asbestos, mold, and other unhealthy living conditions at the Veterans Affairs apartments. The administrative claims were denied in 2020, and the tenants failed to file the claims in federal court within six months of that decision. Further, despite the tenants' medical problems, nothing justified equitable tolling.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Kirsch , Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv583, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Veterans, Negligence, asbestos
[Modified.] J. Brown corrects the name of one party with no change in judgment. The trial court improperly rejected an insured's argument that its commercial general liability insurance policies with terms longer than one year had two separate annual aggregate limits of liability. Where multiple policies overlap in multi-year frameworks, each policy's language determines coverage, so proration of policy limits is inapplicable. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Brown, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: A166574, Categories: Insurance, asbestos
J. Chase finds that the trial court should not have denied a construction company's motion for summary judgment regarding its borrowed employee defense on a worker's asbestos suit. Although the construction company did not specifically use the term “borrowed employee,” it identified the worker as a borrowed employee under workers' compensation laws because the first ninety days of his employment with the company was through another temporary staffing company. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Chase, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 2023-C-0816, Categories: Employment, asbestos, Workers' Compensation
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court improperly denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss asbestos claims. There is no evidence that the fire doors that allegedly caused the decedent's injury by exposing him to asbestos were manufactured in New York. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 06826, Categories: Jurisdiction, asbestos
J. Brown finds that the trial court improperly rejected an insured's argument that its commercial general liability insurance policies with terms longer than one year had two separate annual aggregate limits of liability. Where multiple policies overlap in multi-year frameworks, each policy's language determines coverage, so proration of policy limits is inapplicable. Reversed in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Brown, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: A166574, Categories: Insurance, asbestos
J. McLaughlin finds that the lower court improperly granted a lime product manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment holding that the suing workers could not pierce the veil in this suit over their asbestos exposure. The asbestos-exposed employees produced evidence that, in practice, the manufacturer and shipbuilding company acted as a single entity, and that the manufacturer left the shipbuilder with inadequate assets to satisfy foreseeable asbestos liabilities. Reversed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: McLaughlin, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: J-A15029-23, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, asbestos
J. Biggs denies Ford’s renewed motion for a directed verdict and motion for a new trial in a wrongful death dispute. The wife supports her claims that her husband’s exposure to the asbestos-containing products at issue while working as a tractor-trailer mechanic for 40 years contributed to his mesothelioma. Final judgment will be entered in favor of the wife, awarding her $275,000 in back pay plus prejudgment interest to the tune of nearly $67,000.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Biggs, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv98, NOS: Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Settlements, Damages, asbestos
J. Atkins finds that the trial court properly granted an exception of prescription in favor of employers on the decedent's family's Jones Act suit regarding asbestos exposure while working on the employer's vessels. The federal discovery rule and state's principle of contra non valentem does not apply when the injury and cause were knowable to the plaintiff. Therefore, the statutes of limitations under federal and state law began when the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In this case, it is undisputed that the family learned of the decedent's mesothelioma diagnosis in September 2012 and that the family did not file suit until nearly nine years after the diagnosis. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Atkins, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 2023-CA-0116, Categories: Civil Procedure, Maritime, asbestos
J. Love vacates the granting of the decedent's wife's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum filed by the decedent's children to obtain the settlement and accompanying documents related to the decedent's action for injuries sustained as a result of being exposed to asbestos. The children are entitled to bring survival and wrongful death claims under statute. Further, the trial court did not review the settlement documents prior to granting the motion to quash. Vacated.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Love, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 2023-C-0637, Categories: Discovery, asbestos
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly declined to dismiss an employee's complaint alleging he was exposed to asbestos while working for Porsche. Porsche failed to establish that it did not have liability for products distributed prior to 1984. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 05443, Categories: asbestos