Check the performance and reach of your content.
Become your target audience's first-choice resource for acquiring today's hottest topics.
Understand the customer’s strategy and the most pressing issues they face.
Stay one step ahead of your main competitors and use them as a benchmark.
problem? Please contact [email protection]
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, December 2, 2021
In this matter, the plaintiff Darlene Data sued a number of defendants on behalf of her husband Michael Data, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2019. Passed away on February 6, 2020. Mr. Deda was from June 1969 to March 1973, including aboard the USS Newport News. From July 1973 to August 1974, he worked at the Crane Company foundry in Newcastle, Pennsylvania. Next, he worked at Mesta Machine in Newcastle, Pennsylvania from October 1974 to June 1982. Finally, from November 1983 to October 2009, Mr. Data was employed at the West Pittsburgh Power Station (factory) in Newcastle, Pennsylvania.
Twenty defendants, including distributors and manufacturers of valves, steam traps, pumps, gaskets, control panels, generators, turbines, compressors, oil purifiers, and forklifts, filed summary judgments on product identification and causality motion. Your Excellency Cynthia Reed Eddy, the Chief District Judge of the United States, issued her report and recommendations for each summary judgment motion on November 9, 2021. Hon. December 2, 2021. U.S. District Judge Marilyn J. Horan adopted Judge Eddie’s report and recommendations as the court’s opinion.
Although the motions put forward by the defendants are different, the main points raised in the motions are as follows: (1) The evidence is too speculative to determine the exposure (for example, only exists); (2) The evidence is not on a frequent, regular and direct basis Establish exposure; (3) Evidence fails to identify a specific product or exposure to the product; (4) There is no evidence that a specific product contains asbestos; (5) There is a lack of evidence that a specific product exists in a specific location.
The court approved motions for summary judgment against the following 14 defendants: MS Jacobs & Associates, Inc.; Flowserve America; Armstrong International; William Powell; Clyde Associates; IU North America; Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc.; Viking Pump Company; Dezurik, Inc.; Alfa Laval Company; Hyster Yale Group Co., Ltd.; BW/IP, Inc.; Gardner Denver; and Clark Equipment Company. The court approved these motions for the following reasons: (1) The product was supplied or installed in a specific location several decades before Mr. Data’s employment; (2) Although the evidence proved that the product contained asbestos and existed in a certain location, it failed Establish frequent, regular and close exposure; (3) The evidence to determine the exposure is based on speculation; (4) The evidence fails to show that the way Mr. Data encountered a particular product caused him to inhale the dust generated by using the product; (5) ) The evidence is not sufficient to infer that the product was present at a certain location during Mr. Data’s employment; (6) The evidence only established trace exposure.
For reasons similar to the above, the court partially approved and partially rejected the motions for summary judgment of the following three defendants: DCo LLC, General Electric Company, and FMC Company.
The court rejected the motion for summary judgment against Nash Engineering Company, Honeywell, Inc. and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Buffalo Pumps). Due to the suspension of bankruptcy, Nash Engineering's motion was rejected without prejudice. As for Honeywell, the court found evidence that Honeywell valves were manufactured with asbestos-containing gaskets and packing before 1983. Mr. Data was often present during valve maintenance and assisted others in repackaging. There were hundreds of factories in the factory. Honeywell valves. The court pointed out that “the individual exposed to asbestos does not need to testify directly that he knows that the product he has been exposed to contains asbestos, but there is other valid evidence that the product contains asbestos.” As for Air & Liquid Systems, the court first pointed out that Buffalo Pumps requires it in its pumps. The use of asbestos-containing parts, including gaskets, filler cement and cloth, is sufficient to bear the responsibilities under maritime law. In addition, Mr. Data’s testimony was that he worked on every pump in a specific engine room, and another witness’s testimony was that Buffalo Pumps appeared in every engine room on the ship, and expert opinion, Mr. Data was in contact with asbestos gaskets and packing Pumps on Buffalo Increased his risk of mesothelioma, which is enough to overcome simple judgment.
Read the dismissal order here.
Read the report and recommendations here.
If you want to know how Lexology can push your content marketing strategy forward, please send an email to [Email Protection].
"Just a note to tell you how great your newsletter is. I received some of them, and this one is by far the most helpful. Thank you for your excellent work!"
© Copyright 2006-2021 Legal Business Research