Asbestos Cases A–Z: A

164 decisions whose name begins with A.

• Anderson v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had entered for Consolidated Rail Corporation against William Anderson, and remanded for further proceedings, which may include a Frye hearing.
• Anderson v. Crown Cork & Seal (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2000). The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand and sent the case back to Portsmouth Circuit Court, rejecting the defendants' federal enclave removal theory.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2014). The court denied Crane Co.'s and York International's motions for leave to file a dispositive motion on the bare metal defense, leaving the plaintiff's claims to proceed to trial.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2014). The district court denied Crane Co.'s motion, joined by other defendants, to exclude plaintiff Arva Anderson's expert Dr. Abraham's specific causation testimony, so the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2013). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an additional expert report: she may serve a new medical causation expert report within 45 days, but the expert may not give 'every exposure' testimony.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion, joined by York, Honeywell, Goulds Pumps, Flowserve and Sepco, and excluded the plaintiff's experts' "every exposure" specific causation testimony, a ruling for the defendants over Arva Anderson.
• Anderson v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2020). The court approved the parties' stipulation dismissing the wrongful death action against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. without prejudice, with the limitations period tolled until after the state appeal ends.
• Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had been entered for Metalclad Insulation Corp. against Warren Anderson on limitations grounds, and remanded the case to the trial court, with costs to Anderson.
• Anderson v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's summary judgment for Motorola Solutions and Zenith Electronics and remanded for trial, ruling for the plaintiff estate.
• Anderson v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013). The court granted Procter & Gamble's motion in limine, reversing its earlier view and holding the repose-statute exception did not apply, so evidence of exposures during improvement and new-construction work is barred at trial, while maintenance exposures remain a fact question.
• Anderson v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims proceed and are not barred by the statute of repose.
• Anderson v. the Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company's amended motion for summary judgment, so the estate of electrician Lloyd Anderson, represented by his wife Beverly Anderson, may proceed on its premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims.
• Andreoli v. State Insulation Corporation (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2011). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of Hess Corporation's motion to dismiss and remanded for dismissal of the estate's claims against Hess with prejudice as time-barred.
• Andres v. Raytheon Technologies Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2022). The court granted Huntsman Corp.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the second amended complaint as to Huntsman without leave to amend and without jurisdictional discovery.
• Andrews v. John Crane, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2020). The appeals court affirmed that maritime law applied and that JCI did not waive it, but reversed the take-nothing judgment for John Crane, Inc. because the trial court wrongly barred recovery of Pepper's pre-death pain and suffering, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Andrucki v. Alcoa, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court denied the Port Authority's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs (the Andruckis) met the notice-of-claim and timing conditions and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the Port Authority.
• Angelo v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1993). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Angelos' motion for a new trial and the judgment for the asbestos product defendants entered on the jury's phase-one verdict.
• Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. v. Cantrell (Virginia Supreme Court, 2015). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the circuit court's order allowing Cantrell to nonsuit his claims, ruling for the appealing defendants (twelve premises defendants and Huntington Ingalls), and remanded for further proceedings.
• Anjeski v. Keene Bldg. & Development Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1989). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants Keene, Celotex and Owens-Illinois, ruling that plaintiff Irene Anjeski's sole product identification deposition could not support a jury finding that her husband was exposed to their products.
• Ann Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Johnson & Johnson and remanded the case, finding the Strobels had raised a triable issue on whether the baby powder Douglas Strobel used contained asbestos.
• Apcompower Inc. v. State, Department OF Labor and Industries (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, which had vacated the citation, and reinstated the Board's order upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' citation of APComPower for serious asbestos-work violations.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton (Cutler Hammer), Foster Wheeler, Schneider Electric (Square D), Union Carbide and Crane. It denied summary judgment to MCIC and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion against the strict liability claim.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert's opinion about asbestos exposure from Micarta and granted summary judgment to CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) against Charles and Barbara Arbogast on all claims.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert Dr. Vance's opinions that GE wire and GE marine turbines exposed Arbogast to asbestos, and granted summary judgment to General Electric on all of the Arbogasts' claims against it.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions that the plaintiffs did not oppose, and entered partial judgment for all defendants on the aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims; fourteen defendants remain in the case.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Georgia-Pacific's industrial hygienist expert, Donald Marano, so Georgia-Pacific won the motion.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The court granted CSXT Transportation's motion, treated as one for summary judgment, and dismissed the contribution claims by Georgia-Pacific and MCIC against CSXT because LHWCA exclusivity bars them; it also ordered defendants to show cause why the remaining claims should not be remanded to state court.
• Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal held that ACL, a raw asbestos supplier, was properly held strictly liable, but that the trial court erred in not applying Proposition 51; it remanded for allocation of noneconomic damages between Owens Corning and ACL and otherwise affirmed the judgment for Arena.
• Arendt v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois, dismissing with prejudice the claims of Georgia Arendt and her husband's estate as barred by issue preclusion and the Wisconsin statute of limitations, and ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why they should not pay Owens-Illinois' attorneys' fees.
• Ark. Okl. Gas v. Public Service Com'n (Arkansas Court of Appeals, 1989). Affirmed the Arkansas Public Service Commission's order denying Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Company's surcharge for asbestos removal costs, because substantial evidence supported the finding that the asbestos was not friable; two judges dissented.
• Armanious v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff estate's claims against it continue, because a jury could infer that Mr. Nilsson was exposed to its Calidria asbestos through National Gypsum's Gold Bond joint compound.
• Armstrong World Industries v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal mostly affirmed the trial court's coverage rulings for asbestos manufacturers Armstrong, Fibreboard and GAF against their insurers, but modified the bodily-injury trigger ruling, reversed the 'expected or intended' declaration and the finding that GAF's pre-merger policies covered Ruberoid products, and remanded one Armstrong excess-policy issue.
• Arndt v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1976). The Court of Appeal annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's dismissal of the widow's death-benefit application as untimely and sent the case back to the Board, so Erla Arndt prevailed over Western Asbestos Company and the other respondents.
• Arnold v. Garlock, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2001). The Fifth Circuit denied Garlock's motions to stay the district courts' remand and dismissal orders pending appeal and dissolved its temporary stays, so the plaintiffs won and Garlock lost.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2011). The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Arnolds' CR 60(b)(3) motion to vacate summary judgment for Lockheed, because the earlier appeal had already decided that the Walsh-Healey Act creates no duty to the Arnolds.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed on Daniel Arnold's own occupational exposure claim, but reversed it on all other claims by the Arnolds and remanded for trial.
• Arpin v. Consol. Rail Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2016). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Conrail and APU, holding that Arpin's 2007 release of an earlier asbestosis claim did not bar his later lung cancer claim, so Arpin prevailed.
• Arrowood Indemnity Company v. ST Joseph's Roman Catholic Church (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied the Messina family's request to abstain and their Rule 12(b)(6) motion, keeping Arrowood Indemnity's insurance coverage declaratory action in federal court.
• Asbestos Corporation Limited v. Akaiwa (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2007). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, ruling for Asbestos Corporation Limited because the executor of Littlefield's estate showed no evidence that Littlefield was exposed to ACL asbestos.
• Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization v. Wheeler (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted summary judgment to the asbestos-awareness organizations and the plaintiff states, denied the EPA's cross-motion, and remanded to the EPA with instructions to begin a rulemaking on asbestos reporting under TSCA section 8(a).
• Asbestos Information Ass'n/North America v. Osha (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit held OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard lowering the asbestos exposure limit from 2.0 to 0.5 f/cc invalid, ruling for the Asbestos Information Association and other petitioners against OSHA.
• Asbestos Insul. Co. v. Wcab (McGOVERN) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1983). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, leaving Asbestos Insulating Co. and its insurer liable for the disability and death benefits of Joseph McGovern's widow.
• Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Kaylo insulation) and Rock Wool (One Shot cement), reversed the judgments against Garlock, A.W. Chesterton and Flexitallic, affirmed the judgments against Abadie, Naquin and Terrebonne and the dismissal of Plaisance's claim as prescribed, and ordered a virile-share reduction for Avondale's settlement that, on rehearing, applies only to Duronslet.
• Asbury v. AW Chesterton Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2010). The court denied Union Carbide's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, so the Asburys' case stays in Rhode Island. It ruled out Rhode Island law, tentatively found Iowa had the most significant relationship, and reserved judgment on the defendants' motion to apply foreign law pending further briefing.
• Ashdown v. Ameron International Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ameron International Corp. against the estate and family of Gary Smith, holding the workers' compensation remedy was their exclusive remedy.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prod. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and extended their time to stipulate to the reduced damage awards until fourteen days after the Appellate Division decides the Peraica appeal, over the objection of defendants Cleaver-Brooks and Burnham.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court extended plaintiffs' time to stipulate to reduced verdict amounts to 60 days from this order, but denied their requests to renew and reargue their opposition to defendants' post-verdict motion; Cleaver-Brooks and Burnham largely prevailed.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating 15 asbestos cases into three joint trial groups and ordering the Liberman and Vara cases tried separately, over the defendants' objections.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The trial court denied the motions by defendants Cleaver-Brooks and Burnham to compel post-verdict disclosure of settlement agreements and amounts with individual companies and bankruptcy trusts, so the plaintiffs prevailed.
• Associated Industries of Massachusetts v. Snow (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1990). The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the Massachusetts asbestos abatement statute and regulations against Associated Industries' preemption challenge, except the respirator and medical monitoring provisions, and ruled for the Commonwealth on the disposable protective clothing requirement.