News Brief
Evans Obtains Summary Judgment in Asbestos Case
September 12, 2011
Julie Evans (Partner-New York) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a global telecommunications company in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, MDL 875. The action was originally filed in New York state court, removed to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York and then transferred to the MDL.
The plaintiff, an electrician, claimed he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to many different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable manufactured by a company for which the defendant is successor-in-interest. The defense moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the wire and cable the plaintiff described as having worked with at several locations could not have contained asbestos, as established by affidavit and testimony of a long-time former employee and railroad specifications. The plaintiff submitted various publications in an attempt to establish that company did manufacture asbestos-containing wire and cable during the relevant time period and applications.
The judge granted the defense’s motion in accordance with the magistrate’s recommendation. As the defendant takes a “no pay” position in asbestos exposure lawsuits, this win avoided a trial and its related risks.
The plaintiff, an electrician, claimed he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to many different asbestos-containing products, including wire and cable manufactured by a company for which the defendant is successor-in-interest. The defense moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the wire and cable the plaintiff described as having worked with at several locations could not have contained asbestos, as established by affidavit and testimony of a long-time former employee and railroad specifications. The plaintiff submitted various publications in an attempt to establish that company did manufacture asbestos-containing wire and cable during the relevant time period and applications.
The judge granted the defense’s motion in accordance with the magistrate’s recommendation. As the defendant takes a “no pay” position in asbestos exposure lawsuits, this win avoided a trial and its related risks.