Chaknova

Chaknova v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 86·69 Cal. App. 4th 962·81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 871·99 Daily Journal DAR 1187·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 962
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 1999A080747California6,362 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

Dorothy Chaknova, on her own behalf and as successor in interest to her deceased husband, Albert Chaknova, appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of respondent corporation, Wilbur-Ellis Company (Wilbur-Ellis) in this action for asbestos-related injuries. We hold, as did the trial court, that Wilbur-Ellis met its burden of establishing that it is not liable for appellants’ injuries. The Chaknovas failed to create triable issues of material fact concerning Wilbur-Ellis’s liability as successor in interest to the asbestos brokerage firm L. H. Butcher, and concerning Albert Chaknova’s exposure to asbestos brokered by Wilbur-Ellis.

Procedural History

Albert and Dorothy Chaknova filed complaints for personal injury and loss of consortium, respectively, against several asbestos defendants including respondent Wilbur-Ellis. The actions were consolidated and Wilbur-Ellis moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no liability as a corporate successor nor as a “product line” successor to L. H. Butcher, a corporation alleged to have brokered asbestos to which Albert was exposed during his career as a pipefitter. Wilbur-Ellis also sought summary…

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.