The federal Bankruptcy Code allows companies in bankruptcy proceedings to establish asbestos bankruptcy trusts, in which assets are set aside for the benefit of future claimants whose specific identity is unknown at the time of the bankruptcy. So-called “double dipping” can occur when a plaintiff seeks recovery from an asbestos bankruptcy trust without disclosing that recovery in litigation against other defendants.  Recent legislative amendments in Michigan will make it more difficult for individuals to engage in double dipping.

On February 8, 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed House Bill 5456, which amended the Revised Judicature Act by adding the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act (the “Transparency Act”).  Currently, a plaintiff seeking compensation for asbestos exposure may seek redress in two ways: by filing a complaint in court, and by filing a claim against an asbestos bankruptcy trust.  To date, there are approximately 60 asbestos bankruptcy trusts in the United States with assets approaching $25 billion, which have been established for the sole purpose of paying asbestos-related personal injury claims.  Although the Transparency Act does not eliminate a plaintiff’s ability to seek compensation from both the trusts rand litigation, it imposes disclosure requirements to prevent a plaintiff from “double-dipping.”  Thus, under the Transparency Act, any compensation received from an asbestos trust will be credited against any judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

Pursuant to the Transparency Act, a plaintiff in an asbestos action must, within 30 days after filing an action, provide a signed statement, under penalty of perjury, attesting that any and all potential asbestos trust claims that could be filed, have been filed.  In addition, a plaintiff must provide—to all parties—all trust claim materials,[1] including those that relate to conditions other than those that are the basis for the asbestos action.  Finally, if the plaintiff’s asbestos trust claim is based on secondary exposure through another individual, he or she must submit all trust claim materials submitted by the other individual.

The Transparency Act affirmatively requires a plaintiff to provide up-to-date trust claim materials, and it also provides defendants with tools to deter a plaintiff from failing to comply with her disclosure obligations.  A defendant in an asbestos action now has the ability to request a 60-day stay, if the defendant identifies an asbestos trust claim that a plaintiff has failed to disclose to the parties, and the defendant believes the claim should have been identified.  After a motion to stay the matter has been filed, the burden to lift the stay shifts to the plaintiff, who may respond in one of three ways: file the asbestos trust claim; file a response stating that there is insufficient evidence for the plaintiff to file the asbestos trust claim; or request a determination from the court that the costs to file the asbestos trust claim would outweigh the expected recovery.

The Transparency Act also provides safeguards for those scenarios in which a plaintiff first obtains a judgment in an asbestos action and then files an asbestos trust claim that was already
Continue Reading No More Double-Dipping in Michigan

On August 30, 2016, a Miami-Dade jury awarded Richard Batchelor and his wife more than $21 million after finding that his mesothelioma arose, in part, from asbestos exposure during overhaul work at a Florida Power & Light Co. (FP+L) power plant. On December 27, 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal erased the verdict against defendant Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), finding that the jury should never have considered claims against that defendant because of plaintiffs’ insufficient evidence.  The appellate court also found reversible error in an adverse inference instruction, and concluded that Bechtel’s efforts to locate discoverable information were reasonable under the circumstances.

Between 1974 and 1980, Richard Batchelor worked for FP&L as an electrical technician at two power plants including the Turkey Point power plants. At that time, Turkey Point was a sprawling and complex facility – occupying over three thousand acres and containing 12 nuclear-fueled units and two oil and natural gas fueled units – and provided power for all of South Florida. On any given day, four hundred FP&L employees and numerous contractors worked at Turkey Point. Mr. Batchelor was responsible for repairing and maintaining gauges and equipment at the site, including four of the nuclear and gas units. Insulation, an indeterminate amount of which contained asbestos, covered the various pipes, wires, and equipment at the plant. Mr. Batchelor never removed insulation from any equipment and never worked on equipment while the insulation was being removed. Instead, insulation removal was performed by independent contractors who specialized in insulation removal, and other FP&L workers. Mr. Batchelor did work in the vicinity of other workers removing insulation, but it is unclear how close Mr. Batchelor worked to those removing asbestos, how often this occurred, or the duration of the occurrences. When asked by his attorney if the dust he breathed in was from insulation, Mr. Batchelor responded, “It could be from anywhere. It’s just dust.”

One of the contractors retained to provide ongoing maintenance services of the equipment on site was defendant Bechtel. The contracts provided that FP&L would issue work orders at its discretion to Bechtel, which would do the work requested on a cost-plus basis. FP&L decided whether FP&L or Bechtel would provide needed supplies, equipment, and ancillary services. During the relevant time period, Bechtel provided 1,050,070 man hours of services at Turkey Point.

FP&L periodically shut down the units for repair and maintenance. During these shutdowns, FP&L had Bechtel perform major overhauls on the units. FP&L also had another contractor, Foster Wheeler, perform maintenance on the unit’s giant boilers, which were lined with insulation. Although other contractors were present most of the time, Bechtel received work instructions only from FP&L.

In 2015, Mr. Batchelor was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. On January 2, 2016, he filed suit against twenty-six defendants, including Bechtel Corporation, for negligently causing his mesothelioma. Mr. Batchelor’s medical causation expert never examined Mr. Batchelor and never visited Turkey Point. He based his opinion solely on a review of Mr. Batchelor’s deposition
Continue Reading Florida Court of Appeal’s Recent Reversal of $21M Asbestos Verdict Highlights the Inherently Speculative Nature of Asbestos Claims

A federal district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana recently held that it continued to have federal jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, even after the plaintiffs amended their petition to delete claims that gave rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the original removal satisfied the proper requirements to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction and exercised its discretion to retain the case.

This case, Pitre v. Huntington Ingalls, et al,[i]  arose out of lung cancer allegedly caused by asbestos exposure while the decedent was employed at Avondale Shipyard in Avondale, Louisiana. The initial petition named numerous defendants and included, among other causes of action, failure to warn and other negligence claims against Avondale, as well as strict products liability and failure to warn claims against Foster Wheeler. The plaintiffs filed a first amended petition adding an additional defendant, Occidental Chemical, and asserting strict liability claims against the new defendant and against Avondale.

In discovery, a former coworker of the decedent testified that the decedent worked on U.S. navy ships built by Avondale, Destroyer Escorts. Within 30 days of this testimony, defendants Avondale and Lamorak removed the case to federal court and asserted that they were entitled to removal under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), as the plaintiffs’ claims were related to acts performed under color of federal office. After a federal magistrate judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint deleting their strict liability claims against Avondale, the defendants appealed the ruling to the district court. In their response to the appeal, plaintiffs moved to remand the action to state court.

The defendants argued that the effort to amend the original petition by deleting strict liability claims was a bad faith attempt to defeat federal jurisdiction. The district court denied defendants’ appeal and concluded that there was no error in granting the plaintiffs leave to amend, as courts are freely permitted to give leave to amend when justice so requires. However, that still left open the issue of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

The court cited Fifth Circuit opinions, IMFC Prof. Servs. of Fla. v. Inc. v. Latin Am. Home Health, Inc.[ii] and Bartel v. Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc.,[iii] in support of the principle that jurisdiction “is based on notice of removal, not the amended complaint.” Therefore, “although an amended complaint deleting federal claims may permit a discretionary remand, it does not destroy federal jurisdiction over a validly removed case.” The appellants’ original removal to federal court was properly supported by a colorable defense of federal contractor immunity. The plaintiffs did not seriously contest that their original claims were removable, arguing only that their strict liability claims were brought in error. The court held that though “a good faith error may justify granting leave to amend,” in this matter “plaintiffs’ error does not create a jurisdictional defect in notice of removal.” Furthermore, the court held that Foster Wheeler, a boiler manufacturer defendant,
Continue Reading Eastern District of Louisiana Rejects Attempt to Defeat Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction After Removal

In 2015, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision in Aubin v. Union Carbide, which mandated that juries be instructed on the “consumer expectations test.” On November 28, 2017, seven years after initially filing her lawsuit, a plaintiff in  Miami-Dade County won a $6.9 million asbestos verdict in a retrial based on the Aubin decision, in Font v. Union Carbide, Case No. 2010-041578-CA-01, This was the plaintiff’s second “bite at the apple,” as the first trial had resulted in a defense verdict for Union Carbide.

In the case underlying the Font appeal, Aubin, the Florida Supreme Court rejected sole reliance on the Third Restatement of Torts’ “risk utility test,” under which a plaintiff must demonstrate that “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So.3d 489, 505 (Fla. 2015). Instead, the Florida Supreme Court required courts to use the Second Restatement of Torts’ consumer expectations test, which asks whether a product is unreasonably dangerous in design because it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Id. at 503. As described by the Florida Supreme Court in Aubin, “[t]he critical difference regarding design defects between the Second Restatement and the Third Restatement is that the Third Restatement not only replaces the consumer expectations test with the risk utility test but also requires the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a ‘reasonable alternative design.’ Id. at 505.

In rejecting sole reliance on the Third Restatement’s risk utility test, the Florida Supreme Court in Aubin explained that the original reason for imposing strict liability for defective and unreasonably dangerous products was to relieve injured consumers from the difficulties of proving negligence by the product manufacturer. Id. at 506-507. However, the Third Restatement eliminates consideration of consumer expectations, and, in fact, “imposes a higher burden on consumers to prove design defect than exists in negligence cases” by adding the additional requirement that an injured consumer “prove that there was a ‘reasonable alternative design’ available to the product’s manufacturer.” Id. at 506.

Two years later, the potential impact of the Aubin decision on asbestos litigation in Florida has become apparent in cases such as  Font v. Union Carbide. In Font, the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her father’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against Union Carbide and other asbestos manufacturers and distributors for negligence and strict liability based on an alleged failure to warn, and for the manufacture of an allegedly defective product. The plaintiff alleged that her father died of malignant pleural mesothelioma as a result of exposure to joint compound products and texture sprays designed, manufactured, and supplied
Continue Reading Florida Plaintiff Receives $6.9 Million Judgment After Florida Appellate Courts Require Jury To Be Instructed With A More Consumer Friendly Test

For the first time since 1989[1], Connecticut’s Supreme Court addressed the plaintiff’s burden of proof in the asbestos context, in Wayne Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group et al, SC 19835 (11/7/17).  In a win for defendants facing such claims, the court found that plaintiffs bringing claims pursuant to the Connecticut Product Liability Act (under both strict liability and negligence theories) require expert testimony to prove exposure at levels sufficient to cause their asbestos-related disease, and not merely general testimony that an asbestos-containing product generated an indefinite amount of dust in the plaintiff’s vicinity.

The decedent, Wayne Bagley (“Bagley”) worked at Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (“Sikorsky”), and alleged exposure to an adhesive product used to bind interior components of helicopter blades. The material, an epoxy, came in the form of a sheet with strippable release paper, it contained 8.6 percent asbestos, and was manufactured by Wyeth Holdings’ predecessor. Employees removed any excess epoxy with chisels or by sanding. The Bagley estate called a former co-worker to testify that Bagley’s work area overlooked the blade shop, that Bagley’s daily responsibilities required him to enter the sanding room frequently, and that the sanding process created visible dust to which Bagley and he would have been exposed to.

At trial, the plaintiff presented causation expert testimony from Dr. Arnold Brody and Dr. Jerrold Abraham. Dr. Brody testified in detail regarding the process by which asbestos causes mesothelioma. However, he acknowledged on cross-examination that his testimony was based upon the assumption that a person has already been exposed to respirable asbestos fibers.

Dr. Abraham, a pulmonary pathologist testified that a proximate cause of the decedent’s mesothelioma was the exposure to asbestos fibers from the epoxy while the decedent passed through the sanding room of the blade shop. While discussing causation, Abraham was given a hypothetical scenario that reflected Bagley’s alleged exposure during his ten-month tenure as the manufacturing engineer. In response, Abraham testified that the scenario was a clear description of an exposure to asbestos fibers emitted from working with epoxy, and that the mere presence of dust indicated inadequate control of the product. On cross-examination, Abraham acknowledged that he never inspected the epoxy, that he did not speak with anyone at Sikorsky about the ventilation in the sanding room, and that he did not know of any studies concerning fiber release of the product when manipulated.

Once the plaintiff rested, Wyeth moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the estate failed to present any evidence of either a design defect or that asbestos dust from the epoxy caused the decedent’s death. Moreover, the defendant argued that expert testimony is required to prove the dangerousness of the epoxy, as it was a complex product for which an ordinary consumer could not form a safety expectation. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict reasoning that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the epoxy was unreasonably dangerous and that the defendants were negligent in failing
Continue Reading Connecticut Requires Expert Testimony for Proving Exposure Levels