Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

TYNDALL et al v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Opposing Party: 
Jammie C Tyndall
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of South Carolina
Date Filed: 
Apr 13 2011

"16. Upon information and belief, one or more of Defendants, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and/or INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, are the succesors-in-interest to the liabilities of the WILLIS, and as such are named in the Complaint in their individual capacities and as successors-in-interest to the WILLIS for the injuries sustained to Plaintiffs' Decedent."

"24. The negligence of WILLIS and Defendants, their agents, servants or employees, acting individually or concurrently, contributed in some way, however slight, to Mr. Carawan's injuries in the following respects:
(a) Failing to provide Mr. Carawan with a reasonably safe place within which to work;
(b) Failing to furnish Mr. Carawan with safe and suitable tools and equipment, including adequate protective masks and/ or protective inhalation devices;
(c) Failing to warn Mr. Carawan of the true nature and hazardous effects of the asbestos-related materials;
(d) Failing to provide instructions or a method for the safe use of asbestos;
(e) Failing to provide adequate, if any, instructions in the use or removal of old asbestos products;
(f) Failing to test asbestos-containing products prior to requiring employees to work with same, to determine their ultra-hazardous nature;
(g) Formulating and using a method of handling asbestos and asbestos-related materials that exposed Mr. Carawan to high concentrations of asbestos fibers;
(h) Failing to provide Mr. Carawan with safe and proper ventilation systems in the vessels' repair facility;
(i) Allowing unsafe practices to become the standard practice;
(j) Failing to exercise reasonable care in publishing and enforcing a safety plan and method of handling and installing said asbestos and asbestos insulation materials and other asbestos-containing products;
(k) Failing to inquire of the suppliers of asbestos-containing products, the hazardous nature of asbestos;
(l) Requiring employees to work with an ultra-hazardous product;
(m) Failing to exercise adequate, if any, care for the health and safety of employees, including Mr. Carawan;
(n) Failing to periodically medically test and examine Mr. Carawan to determine if he was subject to any ill effects of his exposure to asbestos-related products;
(o) Failing to periodically inspect its vessels and their appurtenances to ascertain any contamination by asbestos fibers.
(p) Exposing Mr. Carawan to asbestos products that it knew to be deadly without adequate warnings to workers such as Mr. Carawan;
(q) Failing to advise Mr. Carawan of the dangerous characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-related products;
(r) Failing or omitting to provide Mr. Carawan with the knowledge as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient wearing apparel and proper protective equipment and appliances, if, in truth, it was in any way able to protect him from being poisoned and disabled as he was by exposure to such deleterious and harmful asbestos-related insulation materials;
(s) Inadequately or untimely warning, if, in fact, it warned at all, persons such as Mr. Carawan of the dangers to their health in coming in contact with and breathing said asbestos and asbestos-related materials, even after it knew of the dangers and cancer-causing effects, and up until the present time;
(t) Failing to improve the work environment upon notice of the damages associated with asbestos;
(u) Failing to maintain the vessels in a condition which would prevent asbestos related illnesses to seaman;
(v) Failing to post or observe manufacturer's warnings;
(w) Failing to comply with the legally-required duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of Mr. Carawan; and
(x) All other instances of negligence which will be shown following discovery and the trial of this cause.

25. In addition, the WILLIS and Defendants were negligent per se in that they failed to
insure the vessels and workplaces compiled with standards set by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration related to asbestos exposure."

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.