Casey

Casey v. Perini Corp.

Good Law
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 683·206 Cal. App. 4th 1222·2012 WL 2122524
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 13, 2012No. A131881California6,357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reardon, J.

The trial court granted summary judgment to respondent Perini Corporation (Perini), 1 resulting in the dismissal of an asbestos action filed against it by appellant Patricia Casey and her late husband John Casey (plaintiffs). 2 On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by failing to find that Perini did not meet its initial burden of production of evidence in support of its summary judgment motion, by improperly excluding from evidence their expert witness declaration, and by disregarding their evidence that Perini exposed Casey to asbestos. We affirm.

I. FACTS

Between 1962 and 2001, Casey worked as a plumber and pipefitter. He performed this work at countless jobsites. Casey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2010. On March 22, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium against numerous defendants, including Perini, alleging that Casey developed mesothelioma through his occupational exposure to asbestos.

Plaintiffs identified Perini as having been the general contractor at three jobsites in San Francisco where Casey had worked: the Civic Auditorium (Auditorium), the Alcoa Building (Building), and the Hyatt…

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.