Metalclad Blamed Over Limited Documents In An Asbestos Trial

Metalclad Blamed Over Limited Documents In An Asbestos Trial

Introduction

Last week, Metalclad Insulation LLC's counsel, Sheila G. O'Gara, in response to the complaint made in an ongoing online asbestos trial that Metalclad's expert witnesses never got whole documents, said that the documents would be presented to the jury during the witness' examination and the limitations were due to the restrictions posed by the coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuit involves a retired Rear Admiral and his wife who filed a lawsuit claiming that the asbestos exposure during the installation and removal of Metalclad-supplied insulation on several Navy ships in the U.S. Navy caused his mesothelioma, which will likely cut his life short by years.

The case, originally headed for an in-person trial in July, was moved for an online trial via Zoom by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman, after finding that one juror came down with a fever. The asbestos defendant is appealing for a mistrial that has been denied multiple times by the judge ruling that a friendly discussion between the plaintiffs and two jurors over how to put up a Zoom virtual background didn't unfairly influence the panel.

William F. Ruiz of Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd LLC, the counsel representing the couple, examined Metalclad corporate representative Donald Rees Trueblood, who worked from 1997 till the company ceased its operations in 2014. The representative acknowledged that the company sold asbestos-containing products that weren't "pure" asbestos products and stopped its sale sometime after 1973. He also noted that the company didn't place any additional warnings or instructions on the products, but the products had warning labels required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The case is the second of the two asbestos trials being conducted on Zoom in Alameda County. The first one ended in a defense verdict for Honeywell over a $70 million asbestos suit.