Asbestos Cases A–Z: A

164 decisions whose name begins with A.

• Ahnert v. Brand Insulation Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2014). The court granted Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss, holding that the prior with-prejudice dismissal of the 2010 asbestosis suit barred Beverly Ahnert's 2013 mesothelioma suit against Owens-Illinois.
• Ahnert v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2018). The court denied the Ahnert plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its earlier Daubert rulings barring industrial hygienist Kenneth Garza's reports and testimony, so the exclusion favoring Pabst, Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance and WEPCO stood.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2017). The court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling that factual disputes prevented it from deciding that the Safe Place Statute or the construction statute of repose barred the Ahnerts' claims, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2016). The district court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment on the premises-owner, statute of repose and punitive damages issues, so Beverly Ahnert's claims go to trial.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2016). The court denied Pabst Brewing Company's motion for summary judgment, leaving the executrix's safe-place negligence claim over Daniel Ahnert's mesothelioma to proceed against Pabst.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2016). The district court denied Sprinkmann Sons Corporation's and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's claims against Sprinkmann will go to a jury.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2016). The district court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against Beverly Ahnert's claims and dismissed the case as to Foster Wheeler, finding the claims barred by Wisconsin's construction statute of repose.
• Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's judgment vacating summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers (Air and Liquid Systems, CBS, Foster Wheeler, Ingersoll Rand, General Electric) and sent the case back so the District Court could reconsider under the Court's own duty-to-warn test, which favored the veterans' families.
• Aiu Insurance Company v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation (Delaware Court of Chancery, 2018). The court denied the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on Counts I-V (audit right) because Section 2.3 is ambiguous, and granted PENAC, THAN and the Trust's motions to dismiss Count VI (offset rights), so the insurers lost Count VI.
• Albina Engine & Machine v. Director, Owcp (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2010). The Ninth Circuit granted Albina's petition for review and reversed the Benefits Review Board, holding that Lockheed, the last employer, was liable for the widow's death benefits.
• Alcoa v. Vann (Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 1985). The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Commission's award of benefits to Raymond Vann's estate, rejecting self-insured employer Alcoa's challenge to the finding that his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure at Alcoa.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2007). The appeals court reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed Mrs. Behringer no legal duty.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed no legal duty.
• Alexander v. Auer Steel & Heating Co. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2015). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Auer Steel & Heating, Milwaukee Stove & Furnace Supply, and CertainTeed, holding the Alexander estate lacked evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer Richard was exposed to their asbestos products.
• Alexander v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2018). The court denied Honeywell's motions in limine to exclude plaintiffs' experts Dr. Bedrossian and Dr. Finkelstein and to dismiss the claims, so both experts may testify; plaintiffs won this ruling.
• Alexander v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2017). The court denied Honeywell International's motion for summary judgment on product identification, so the plaintiffs' claims over Bendix brakes go forward; it also denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the schedule for Honeywell's expert reports.
• Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2004). The court reversed the trial court's grant of Morton's exception of no cause of action, which had dismissed the workers' suit, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Alfaro v. Imerys Talc America Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Colgate-Palmolive and Imerys Talc America, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff's expert's testing of vintage talc containers and his related exposure opinion.
• Alford v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Union Carbide's partial summary judgment motion on the failure-to-properly-package claim, denied it as moot on the conceded take-home and lost-earnings claims, and denied it on the Super Visbestos, failure-to-warn and product supplier strict liability issues, so those go to trial for the plaintiffs.
• All Craft Fabricators, Inc. v. Atc Assoc., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to defendants International Paper Company and Owens-Illinois, Inc., dismissing all claims and cross-claims against them brought by All Craft Fabricators and Donaldson Interiors.
• Allen v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court denied defendant Armstrong Pumps Company's (Aurora) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Lorraine Allen's claims and all cross-claims against Aurora stayed in the case.
• Allen v. Eagle Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2022). The appeals court granted the insurers' writ applications but denied relief, leaving in place the trial court's denial of summary judgment and of the motions in limine, so plaintiffs' claims against Lykes' insurers (Hartford, Lloyd's, Edinburgh) continue.
• Allen v. Eagle, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2023). The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed summary judgment for Ports America and against the Allen family plaintiffs, finding Mr. Allen's inconsistent deposition testimony was the only opposing evidence and was insufficient to show a factual dispute over his asbestos exposure while working for Ports America.
• Allen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff estate against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that excluding evidence of other asbestos exposures was error but harmless, and that the directed verdict and warning rulings were not error.
• Alleyne v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied, with leave to renew, defendant Chanel, Inc.'s motion for an open commission to subpoena four out-of-state nonparty sellers of the talcum powder samples tested by plaintiff's expert, so plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Eaton Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013). The court granted Eaton's motion to dismiss only as to Alliance's implied good faith and fair dealing count and denied it on the breach of contract, promissory estoppel and declaratory judgment counts, so those claims against Eaton went forward.
• Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the Asbestos Defendants, so Lucille Herring's wrongful death claim survived the statute of repose challenge.
• AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Herring (Indiana Supreme Court, 2003). The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and the trial court's denial of summary judgment, and remanded for the trial court to decide whether the repose period's exception applied, which partly favored the defendants and left Lucille Herring's claims alive only if the exception applies.
• Alliegro v. ACandS, Inc. (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997). The appeals court reversed the trial court's directed verdict for ACandS, Inc. in phase one and remanded, holding that Mr. Alliegro's evidence should have gone to the jury.
• Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1982). The court granted plaintiff Thomas Amader's motion for partial summary judgment in part, barring Pittsburgh-Corning from relitigating whether Unibestos was defective between 1962 and 1968, but denied the motion on whether Unibestos was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.
• Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1981). The court denied the Amaders' motion to file a third amended complaint adding an emotional distress claim, ruling in favor of Johns-Manville and the other defendants.
• Amatex Corp. v. Aetna (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1979). The court sustained the insurers' (Aetna, American, Bellefonte, Stonewall, Interstate) preliminary objections and dismissed Amatex Corporation's petition for a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage for asbestos claims.
• Amato v. Bell & Gossett (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2015). The Superior Court affirmed both judgments against Crane Co. ($2.5 million for Amato and his wife, $2.3 million for the Vinciguerra estate and widow), rejecting all of Crane's claims of error.
• Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision vacating the class certification and the antisuit injunction, so the objecting class members won and the settling asbestos defendants and class counsel lost.
• Ament v. John Crane-Houdalille, Inc. (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2019). Affirmed the circuit court's judgment for John Crane, Inc., holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking Dr. Frank's specific causation testimony, so the Aments lost.
• American Home Assur. Co. v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court denied American Home's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Port Authority's, Alcoa's and Tishman's motions in part, declaring that coverage was triggered, the fireproofing claims were not a single occurrence, the policy was not exhausted, and the duty to defend survived exhaustion.
• American Home Prod. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1983). The court held that Liberty Mutual's policies are triggered by injury-in-fact during the policy period (neither exposure nor manifestation alone), so Liberty must defend American Home Products until it confines each claim, and it largely rejected both sides' summary judgment theories.
• American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (Florida Supreme Court, 2011). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District, holding that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to the asbestosis plaintiffs, who prevailed over American Optical and the other asbestos defendants.
• Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Metal Masters, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2022). The federal court granted Weist's motion and dismissed Amerisure's declaratory judgment action without prejudice, deferring to the pending South Carolina State Coverage Action; Amerisure lost and Weist and Metal Masters won.
• Amick v. Ohio Power Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, 2014). The court granted in part and denied in part Ohio Power Company's motion for a protective order, limiting the time periods and topics of the plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of OPC's corporate designee.
• Amick v. Ohio Power Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, 2013). The magistrate judge granted Ohio Power Company's motion to compel, ordering the Amicks to answer interrogatories identifying manufacturers, suppliers and contractors and to disclose which entities settled or were dismissed without payment, though not the settlement amounts.
• Amling v. Harrow Industries LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2019). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, without prejudice, of the Amlings' federal declaratory judgment action against Harrow, holding the dispute was ripe but the district court properly declined to hear it.
• Amling v. Schlage Lock Co. (U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2019). The court dismissed the Amlings' federal declaratory judgment suit against Schlage Lock and Harrow Industries without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and alternatively declined to hear it as a matter of discretion.
• Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1997). The appeals court held that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies to the wrongful death awards in Zumas and McCaffery, but not to the personal injury and consortium awards. It ordered Grimshaw's medical-expense award cut to the stipulated amount and reversed the judgment against Hopeman Brothers. It otherwise affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Anchor and Owens-Corning.
• Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2002). The Superior Court vacated the judgments because the trial court applied a pro rata setoff for the unsettled Manville Trust claims, remanded for a pro tanto setoff, and otherwise affirmed the rulings against John Crane, Inc. on judgment n.o.v., new trial and remittitur.
• Anderson v. AC & S., Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2003). The appeals court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the railroads on Shirley Anderson's survival claim and affirmed the denial of summary judgment on her wrongful-death claim, overruling the railroads' cross-appeal and remanding.
• Anderson v. AH Bennett Company (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2025). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment for Waldorf (Westrock) against the Andersons and remanded, because fact issues remain about whether Mr. Anderson was significantly exposed to asbestos while employed by Waldorf.
• Anderson v. AJ Friedman Supply Co. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2010). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Bonnie and John Anderson against Exxon Mobil, including the $7 million and $500,000 awards from the second damages trial, and rejected all of Exxon's arguments.
• Anderson v. Bondex International, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2014). The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying Barbara Anderson leave to amend her complaint, so Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide prevailed because the amended claims did not relate back and were time-barred.
• Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2002). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and related orders for Mary Anderson, upholding the jury's finding that Combustion Engineering was 29 percent responsible for her husband's death.