Products Liability Law Reporter

Starting in 1960, Ronald Wilgenbusch served in the U.S. Navy for several decades. An admiral, he served onboard ships as they were being rebuilt and overhauled at various naval shipyards and other locations. As a result, he was exposed to asbestos insulation supplied by Metalclad Insulation LLC as he monitored the work being done on the ships. Now in his 80s, he has been diagnosed as having mesothelioma. Despite chemotherapy, his condition is terminal.

Wilgenbusch and his wife sued Metalclad Insulation and others, including Fryer-Knowles, Inc., alleging claims for strict liability and negligence. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had failed to warn of the defects in the asbestos insulation to which Wilgenbusch was exposed.
The plaintiffs settled confidentially with Fryer-Knowles and other defendants.

Following a virtual trial, the jury awarded approximately $2.5 million, finding Metalclad Insulation 7% at fault.

Citation: Wilgenbusch v. American Biltrite, Inc., No. RG19029791 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty. Sept. 28, 2020).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ members David Amell and Sarah Gilson, and David Rincilio, all of Emeryville, Calif.; and AAJ member William Ruiz, New York City.

Comment: See also In re New York City Asbestos Litig., 2020 WL 5369202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty. Sept. 3, 2020). There, plaintiffs in two asbestos products liability lawsuits moved for a joint trial. Granting the motion, the trial court noted that although the plaintiffs’ decedents did not share exactly the same occupation or work at the same location, each worked as a building renovator and was exposed to the defendant Kaiser Gypsum Co.’s joint compound. Moreover, the court reasoned that the decedents were allegedly exposed to the defendant’s asbestos-containing products during approximately the same time period in the 1970s. Citing case law, the court found that joint trials are not limited to identical actions and that here, the plaintiffs’ lawsuits involve the same attorneys and expert witnesses and many of the same exhibits. Therefore, the court held, a single court may address the plaintiffs’ claims fairly while managing the parties’ and the court’s resources. AAJ member Matthew Park, New York City, represented the plaintiffs.