SACRAMENTO, Calif. –– A California jury has reached a defense verdict for Honeywell International (NYSE:HON), Fraser-Edwards and Maremont, rejecting claims involving alleged exposure on U.S. Navy ships and while completing automobile repairs.

The California Superior Court for Sacramento County jury reached its verdict on Feb. 21. Judge David DeAlba presided over the seven-week trial, which ended after one-and-a-half days of jury deliberations.

The plaintiffs contended in their lawsuit that Kurt Walter was exposed to asbestos-containing products while serving in theU.S. Navy and, later, while working in auto repair departments of J.C. Penny and CalTrans.

The suit was filed by Kurt Walter and his wife, Shirley Walter. The plaintiffs requested that the jury award more than $10 million.

The plaintiffs named Fraser-Edwards Co. for its role in manufacturing, removing and replacing magnesite flooring on the ship where Walter was stationed; Maremont Corp., for manufacturing automotive brake shoes and lining material that allegedly contained asbestos; and Honeywell International Inc., also for its role in the manufacture of brake shoes and linings.

During trial, the plaintiffs maintained that every exposure to asbestos increases the chance of developing mesothelioma.

Sources told HarrisMartin that the case was originally filed in Alameda County, but was moved to Sacramento County after the defendants filed a motion seeking a transfer.

While trial was ongoing, the court granted Fraser-Edwards’ motion for nonsuit with regards to contractor/premises liability, intentional tort, and punitive damages claims. Similar motions made by Maremont and Honeywell were denied, sources said.

All the defendants argued during trial that, if Walters was exposed to their products, the exposure could not have caused him to develop mesothelioma since the products in question contained chrysotile asbestos. Instead, the defendants argued, Walters’ illness was caused by exposure to amosite asbestos, which was contained in thermal insulation on the U.S. Naval ships on which Walters worked.

Fraser-Edwards specifically argued during trial that the flooring product was actually a non-asbestos product named terrazzo.The defendant additionally challenged Walter’s product identification and contended that, even if the plaintiff’s testimony was credible, any exposure to asbestos in Fraser-Edwards’ products was minimal.

Maremont also contested product identification at trial, arguing that Walters was never exposed to its products. Honeywell told the jury that Walter was overstating his exposure to its products.

The jury found 12-0 that Fraser-Edwards’ products were not the cause of Walter’s asbestos exposure. Despite finding that Walters was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Maremont and Honeywell, the jury determined by a vote of 9 to 3 that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their negligence and strict product liability claims as to these defendants.

Testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs were Dr. Murray Finkelstein, epidemiologist; William Ewing, industrial hygiene; Barry Horn, medical causation; and Robert Johnson, forensic economist.

Testifying on behalf of the defendants were Dr. Sheldon Rabinovitz, industrial hygienist; Dr. Allen Gibbs, pathologist; Dr. Leroy “Skip” Fletcher, automotive braking systems; Patricia Hall, industrial hygienist; Dr. David Garabrant, epidemiologist; and Dr. James Crapo, epidemiologist/medical causation.

Counsel for the plaintiffs were Anthony Vieira and Campbell Filmer of the Law Offices of Anthony Vieira in Westlake Village, Calif.

Fraser-Edwards was represented by Guy Stilson and Karen Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch in San Francisco.

Counsel for Maremont Corp. were Frank Berfield and Paul Bird of McKenna, Long & Aldridge in San Francisco.

Honeywell was represented by Joseph Pevsner of Thompson & Knight in Dallas; and Colleen Baime of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

Walter, et al. v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al., No. 34-2012-00124037 (Calif. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.).

Document is Available
Call (800) 496-4319 or
Search www.harrismartin.com
Verdict Form/Judgment Ref# ASB-1303-18

Click here for the original article

Copyright Note: This article was reproduced from the HarrisMartin Publishing Web site at www.harrismartin.com. While dissemination of this article via e-mail, fax
or regular mail -- provided it has not been altered in any fashion -- is permitted, dissemination of multiple articles through any medium is prohibited without express
consent from HarrisMartin.

HarrisMartin Publishing - 900 W. Sproul Road, Suite 101 - Springfield, PA 19064-1253 (800) - www.harrismartin.com - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Low, Ball & Lynch shareholder Guy Stilson and associate Karen Moore have just received a defense verdict, following a seven week jury trial in Sacramento, California. Plaintiff Kurt Walter and his wife, Shirley Walter, sought over $1.7 million in economic damages and over $12 million in general damages arising out of Mr. Walter’s development of mesothelioma, an incurable cancer linked to exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs were represented by Tony Vieira and his associate, Campbell Filmer. Mr. Vieira is a former Navy JAG officer and Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney who now specializes in asbestos injury and death cases. Mr. Vieira has tried over 100 cases to verdict.  

Plaintiff Kurt Walter served in the U.S. Navy from 1964 to 1968, where his primary assignment was in the boiler room. After leaving the Navy, he worked the parts counter for a J.C. Penny Auto Center in Sacramento until 1983 where he handled brakes on a daily basis. Mr. Stilson represented defendant Fraser-Edwards Co., which was alleged to have exposed Mr. Walter to asbestos when its employees removed and installed a magnesite deck covering material in the galley of one of the ships upon which Mr. Walter served. It was also alleged that Fraser-Edwards Company manufactured the material. The other defendants at trial were Maremont and Honeywell, who manufactured automotive brakes. Approximately 20 other defendants resolved the claims against them prior to trial.

The jury unanimously found that Mr. Walter was not exposed to asbestos by any Fraser-Edwards’ product or activity. While the jury found that both Maremont and Honeywell caused Mr. Walter to be exposed to asbestos, in 9 to 3 decisions the jury did not find that either Maremont or Honeywell was negligent, failed to warn of a known or knowable danger, or that their products were more dangerous than a reasonable consumer would expect, and accordingly rendered defense verdicts for Maremont and Honeywell.

There were numerous issues as to Fraser-Edwards, including whether Mr. Walter’s identification of Fraser-Edwards workers was reliable and whether the deck covering material was asbestos-containing magnesite or another material. “Working against us was Mr. Walter’s claim to have seen Fraser-Edwards’ workers doing the decking work on the USS Halsey, the fact that Fraser-Edwards had a single deck covering product on the Navy’s Qualified Products List, and a document from the United States Patent and Trademark office which shows asbestos was an ingredient in that product,” according to Mr. Stilson. “But working for us were Mr. Walter’s poor credibility – I was able to show that he did not have an actual memory of seeing Fraser-Edwards employees on the USS Halsey and that he changed his testimony between the time of his deposition and the time of trial – and additional evidence that the decking material actually used on the USS Halsey was probably terrazzo, which does not contain asbestos, rather than the Fraser-Edwards’ magnesite product.”

Additional issues presented to the jury included whether chrysotile asbestos, the type of asbestos that was used in both automotive brakes and magnesite, is a potential cause of mesothelioma. Each of the defendants argued that Mr. Walter’s mesothelioma was in fact caused by exposure to amphibole asbestos, which is found in various types of insulation which was used on Navy ships. Amphibole asbestos has clearly been linked to mesothelioma, whereas the link between chrysotile asbestos and mesothelioma is disputed, according to defense attorneys.

Click below for transcripts from the trial.

Opening Statement 

Cross-examination of plaintiff

Kennemur objection (an objection on the ground that an expert is trying to give opinions at trial that differ from or exceed the opinions he gave during deposition – for a Kennemur objection to be successful, the objecting party must show that the expert was properly asked to state all his opinions on the subject matter). This was a very important objection in that it prevented plaintiffs’ causation expert from saying that Fraser-Edwards was a cause of Mr. Walter’s mesothelioma.

Closing Statement    

Shareholders Dale Allen and Dirk Larsen recently obtained the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s denial of partial summary judgment in a police-practices case. In the decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed that a police officer who deployed up to four Taser cycles in an attempt to control a suspect could not be liable to the individual’s family for his use of the Taser. The suspect died shortly after the encounter, and his family argued that he should not have been tased because a scar on his chest indicated an implanted pacemaker. The Ninth Circuit held that, as of the time of the incident, clearly established law did not prohibit the use of the Taser under the circumstances.

Senior Associate Pamela Helman will be giving a talk to the SF Chapter of the National Association of Insurance Professionals about how the Brinker decision affects risk management protocols on February 19, 2013.

Click here for more information.