Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT EVIDENCE—ASBESTOS—E.D. Pa.: Court finds expert qualified, opinions admissible in asbestos exposure case, (Nov 5, 2026)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

A company’s motion to partially exclude the expert testimony of a widow who alleged that her husband died from exposure to asbestos contained in the company’s products was denied by the court.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania denied the request of a company to partially exclude an expert’s testimony in a case brought by the widow of a man who allegedly died from exposure to asbestos contained in the company’s packing and gasket materials. The widow’s wrongful death and survival action asserted claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. The company, John Crane Inc., sought to exclude the widow’s expert’s testimony related to the asbestos content in its products that the man allegedly encountered while working at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. John Crane contended that the expert’s opinions were unreliable because his methodology was faulty; his opinions were impermissibly speculative; and he was not qualified to correlate data collected during industrial hygiene studies to the facts of this case. The court found that the expert, who had a Ph.D. in physics and was a microscopist with nearly two decades of experience researching asbestos, was qualified to analyze industrial hygiene studies and proffer opinions quantifying the release of asbestos from John Crane products. The court concluded that the expert’s opinions were admissible and denied John Crane’s motion to exclude his testimony (Cox v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, No. 24-305 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2026)).

Expert’s qualifications and analysis. The expert was a physicist and microscopist who received a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Georgia. He worked for MVA Scientific Consultants (MVA), an analytical microscopy laboratory, since 2009, and served as its Executive Director since 2014. Since 2009, his research focused on asbestos, including the content of asbestos in products, the release of asbestos from products, and testing and monitoring techniques for detecting the presence of asbestos in products, settled dust, and air samples. In his report, the expert opined that some gaskets and packing, including those manufactured by John Crane, contained chrysotile asbestos. His report included the results of twenty-seven tests on gaskets and packing samples. He concluded that the tested John Crane products, including ones made for marine environments and to withstand high temperatures, contained both chrysotile asbestos and amphibole asbestos.

The expert also relied on the testimony of a former co-worker of the decedent to support his opinions related to the decedent. He noted that the co-worker stated that the decedent worked right next to pipefitters and boilermakers handling (removing and replacing) asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and insulating materials while he and others serviced pumps, valves, steam traps, and flanges. The expert testified at his deposition that the six asbestos-containing John Crane products, along with other John Crane products he examined, were comparable to the products likely handled by the co-worker while near the decedent. The expert opined that installing and removing pipes used in marine and industrial worksites would have caused asbestos fibers to be released from asbestos-containing gaskets, packing, and insulation covering pipes. Thus, the decedent would have been exposed to asbestos from John Crane products.

Defendant’s arguments. John Crane challenged five of the expert’s opinions, arguing that several of the challenged opinions were unreliable because they were not grounded in and did not reliably flow from the facts of this case and were based on an unreliable methodology. These included: (1) opinions about the asbestos content of any John Crane products the deceased may have encountered; (2) opinions that John Crane products contained amphibole asbestos; (3) opinions concerning the releasability of asbestos fibers from any John Crane products the decedent may have encountered; (4) opinions regarding the quantity of asbestos allegedly released from John Crane products the man may have encountered; and (5) opinions comparing the concentration of dust around the man from John Crane products to the concentration of ambient asbestos. The company contended that the expert’s opinions on the asbestos content of John Crane products the decedent may have encountered, the releasability of asbestos fibers from those John Crane products, and the quantity of asbestos fibers released from those products were unreliable. John Crane also maintained that the testimony of the co-worker, the only witness to testify on the decedent’s alleged exposure to John Crane products, was too inconsistent and unspecific to form the basis for the expert’s opinions on John Crane’s products. Further, John Crane argued that the three opinions on the asbestos content and release of asbestos from John Crane products relied on irrelevant tests and studies.

Court’s analysis. According to the court, it must determine whether: (1) the expert was qualified; (2) the proposed testimony was reliable, i.e., supported by scientific methods and procedures; and (3) the proposed testimony fit the case, i.e., was sufficiently tied to the facts of the case. John Crane sought to exclude the expert’s opinion that John Crane products contained amphibole asbestos as speculative. John Crane contended that there was no evidence that the decedent worked near the John Crane products that were analyzed and shown to contain amphibole and pointed to other studies conducted by MVA in which only two out of sixteen different samples of John Crane packing materials were found to contain amphibole, but there were no references to those studies.

The court noted that the co-worker testified that he worked with John Crane products, including in the decedent’s vicinity. The expert inferred that these products had to be able to withstand high heat and steam and be suitable for industrial or marine uses because the co-worker and the decedent worked near and with steam equipment on ships. The expert measured the asbestos content of John Crane gaskets and packing that were also appropriate for such environments. He conducted simulations on and measured how different uses, such as the uses described by the co-worker, of asbestos-containing products, such as John Crane’s gaskets and packing materials, resulted in different releases of asbestos and asbestos exposure. The studies and tests that the expert relied on were specific to John Crane gaskets and packing produced for marine and industrial uses. The court concluded that the expert’s opinions on the asbestos content of John Crane products encountered by the decedent, the releasability of asbestos fibers from those products, and the quantity of asbestos fibers released from those products were therefore based on sufficient facts and methodology to be considered reliable and would not be excluded. The court stated that while John Crane pointed to evidence that contradicted the expert’s opinions, the widow need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert’s opinions were reliable, not correct.

The case is No. 24-305.

Judge: Bartle, H.

Attorneys: Casey R. Coburn (Nass Cancelliere) for Jean C. Cox. Brian J. Schneider (Schneider Law Group PLLC) for Foster Wheeler, LLC and John Crane Inc. f/k/a Crane Packing Co.

Companies: Foster Wheeler, LLC; John Crane Inc. f/k/a Crane Packing Co.

MainStory: TopStory ExpertEvidenceNews AsbestosNews PennsylvaniaNews