California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Collin v. CalPortland Co., C063875

Summary judgment in favor of certain defendants in plaintiff's action alleging that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from the defendants' products or activities when he worked in various construction trades, is: 1) affirmed in part, with regard to defendants CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum, because they met their initial burdens on summary judgment and the evidence and reasonable inferences would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that plaintiff was exposed to one of their asbestos-containing products; but 2) reversed in part, with regard to defendants J-MM and Formosa, where he evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, demonstrates a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from a J-MM product, and said defendants have not established that they are entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law based on the sophisticated user defense.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 07/30/2014
  • Published 07/30/2014

Judges

  • MAURO

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel