Barry McTiernan & Moore scored another victory on behalf of an equipment manufacturer client, in the plaintiff-friendly New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) by obtaining summary judgment.
The Plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure to the asbestos used in boilers manufactured by several boiler companies, including our client. However, we were able to prevail on summary judgment given the plaintiff’s inability to provide specific testimony about his asbestos exposure from his working on or near our client’s equipment. During the course of his deposition, the Plaintiff testified that he inspected boilers in Brooklyn, Queens and every county in Long Island. During cross examination, the Plaintiff admitted that there was no firebrick and the Plaintiff could not affirmatively identify any asbestos component past which caused his exposure. He additionally testified that he could not point to any particular asbestos containing material on our client’s boiler that he believed exposed him to asbestos. As such, when questioned the Plaintiff was unable to say where, when or how he was exposed to asbestos from our client’s boiler. The court found that Barry McTiernan & Moore submitted sufficient evidence that our client’s boiler could not have contribute to Plaintiff’s injury.