Petrini

Petrini v. Mohasco Corp.

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 165·61 Cal. App. 4th 1091·71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 910·98 Daily Journal DAR 1984·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1450
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1998A076840California2,814 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lambden, J.

— Therese Petrini appeals from the summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Mohasco Corporation. She contends the trial court erred in concluding that no triable issue of fact exists to establish that defendant Mohasco Corporation (Mohasco) is a successor in interest to William Volker & Company (Volker). We agree and reverse the judgment.

Facts

Plaintiffs are the widow and children of decedent John Petrini. In a first amended complaint filed on August 1, 1994, they sued Mohasco and some 225 named defendants for damages for decedent’s death in 1993 allegedly caused by mesothelioma, resulting from exposure to asbestos in floor tiles.

Plaintiffs allege that Mohasco is liable as the successor in interest of Volker, which supplied some of the floor tiles and linoleum products containing asbestos. Mohasco filed an answer admitting it had acquired the capital stock of Volker, a Nevada corporation, in January 1970 and that Volker was its wholly owned subsidiary until December 1985. Mohasco denied it is Volker’s successor in interest for purposes of the allegations made in the complaint and denied any direct liability.

Mohasco moved for summary judgment on the ground…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.