Asbestos Cases A–Z: B

351 decisions whose name begins with B.

• Babler v. Soo Line Railroad Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2022). The court granted the Bablers' motion to remand to Milwaukee County Circuit Court because Soo Line Railroad's removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); Soo Line lost its bid to stay in federal court.
• Backe v. AW Kuettel & Sons, Inc. (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2020). The Court of Appeals of Minnesota affirmed the denial of Conwed Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the Backes' asbestos claims against Conwed continue in Minnesota.
• Backer v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court granted plaintiff's motion for joint trials of Backer with Unger, and of Katechis with McGibbon and McLaughlin, over the defendants' opposition.
• Badamo v. Chevron USA Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2022). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Farrell Lines, Chiquita and Chevron, so the executor's Jones Act claim over Badamo's lung cancer goes forward.
• Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Avon's motion to quash service of summons for lack of specific personal jurisdiction, and reversed the costs award to Avon, so plaintiff Bader prevailed.
• Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff (the personal representative of Patricia Schmitz) against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and Colgate-Palmolive, rejecting all of the defendants' claims of error.
• Baechel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994). The court of appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment allowing JoAnn Baechel to participate in the Workers' Compensation Fund for her husband's death, rejecting Sears's three assignments of error.
• Baeth v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (Montana Workers' Comp. Court, 2014). The Workers' Compensation Court held that Judy Baeth has an occupational disease (asbestos-related lung disease) for which Stimson's insurer Liberty Northwest is liable, set her impairment at 45%, awarded medical benefits and costs, and denied her penalty and attorney fees.
• Baeza v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed the defense judgment for Special Electric Company, rejecting the Baezas' claims of attorney misconduct in closing argument and of instructional and judicial error.
• Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2017). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff and remanded with direction to grant Wyeth Holdings Corporation's motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, so Wyeth won and the Bagley plaintiff lost.
• Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corp. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2021). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal's grant of a new trial, reinstated the jury verdict (75% fault on employer RMC, 25% on CAPCO, none on Union Carbide or Montello), and so favored the defendants Union Carbide and Montello over the plaintiffs.
• Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2020). On rehearing, the court vacated its earlier opinion and the trial court's November 2018 and February 2019 judgments, which had denied the Bagwells a new trial, and remanded for a new trial; the Bagwells prevailed over Union Carbide, Montello, Chevron and RMC.
• Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed the jury's finding that Union Carbide and Montello were not at fault and the trial court's evidence and instruction rulings, but raised the survival-action general damages against RMC Holdings, increasing the total award from $1,265,000 to $1,498,333.34 in favor of the Bagwell plaintiffs.
• Bailen v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Philips Electronics North American Corporation's (Magnavox) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Eddie Bailen and Rena Bailen's claims against it continue.
• Bailen v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Union Pacific Railroad Company's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiffs Eddie Bailen and Rena Ash-Bailen keep their case in New York.
• Bailey v. North American Refractories Co. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2001). The Court of Appeals reversed the Boyd Circuit Court's summary judgments for NARCO and for Westinghouse (CBS) and remanded the claims of the Armco Steel workers and their spouses for further proceedings.
• Baiocco v. AC & S., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part, ordering three joint trials (Byrnes, Cayen and Latzer; Dell'Arciprete and Kornacki; Baiocco and Blank) and ordering the Balducci case tried separately.
• Baione v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, 1992). The appellate court reversed the final judgment for Owens-Illinois, reinstated the plaintiff's strict liability counts and punitive damages claim, and remanded; the plaintiff got no retrial on negligence because she had not appealed that verdict.
• Baker v. AC&S, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1999). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's reduction of the verdict by a pro rata share for the Manville Trust, holding the Trust's pro tanto release must be enforced so that AC&S bears the shortfall. It affirmed the denial of AC&S's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remanded to Mrs. Baker's benefit.
• Baker v. ACandS (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2000). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, holding that ACandS received only a $30,000 pro tanto set-off for the Manville Trust's share, so the Bakers (plaintiffs) won and ACandS owed $850,000 instead of $440,000.
• Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to reduce Bakkie's net economic damages against Union Carbide from $2,779,601.22 to $2,130,652.06, affirmed it as modified, and dismissed the purported appeal from the order denying the motion to amend.
• Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability findings against Union Carbide and the denial of its JNOV motion, but reversed the $14.1 million future noneconomic damages award as excessive and ordered a new trial on that item unless plaintiff accepts a reduction to $3.1 million.
• Ballard v. Ameron International Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2016). The court ordered removing defendant Ameron to show cause by October 27, 2016 why the case should not be remanded to state court and why costs and fees should not be imposed, finding Ameron had so far failed to establish federal jurisdiction.
• Ballenger v. Agco Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007). The court denied the Ballenger plaintiffs' motion to remand and their request for fees, holding Todd Shipyards properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute; Todd's request for interlocutory appeal certification was denied as moot.
• Bambrick v. Asten Hill Mfg. Co. et al. (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1972). The Commonwealth Court reversed the awards of the Workmen's Compensation Board and the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court to Robert Utter, Margaret Utter and Alice Bambrick, and dismissed all three claim petitions in favor of Asten Hill, its insurers and the Commonwealth.
• Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed the $4.5 million punitive damages award against ArvinMeritor, rejecting its challenges based on negative net worth and the federal due process ratio limits, so the Bankheads prevailed.
• Bankhead v. Pneumo Abex LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Abex, including the $9 million punitive damages award, holding that excluding Abex's unaudited financial statement was proper and that any error in admitting indemnity evidence was harmless; plaintiffs won.
• Bannister v. Sfb Companies, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2019). The appeal was dismissed, and on SYSTRA Engineering's writ application the court reversed the trial court's denial of SYSTRA's exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, sustained the exception and dismissed SYSTRA from the suit brought by the Bannister heirs.
• Bantin v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. (as successor to Atwood & Morrill), dismissing the Bantins' claims against it with prejudice, and denied the Bantins' summary judgment motion on Atwood & Morrill's affirmative defenses as moot.
• Baptist v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1982). The Court of Appeal annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order rescinding the death benefit award to the widow, Frances Baptist, and remanded, ruling against Johns-Manville Corporation.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court entered a joint proposed pretrial order setting the claims, defenses, admitted facts, witnesses and a March 26, 2018 jury trial against Scapa Dryer Fabrics; it decided no merits question, so neither side prevailed.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted the parties' stipulated motion and continued the initial disclosure, Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report deadlines until one month after it rules on Plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The district court granted Geraldine Barabin's motion to remand her wrongful death suit to King County Superior Court, ruling that Asten, Scapa and Wright had not shown fraudulent joinder, and denied her request for attorneys' fees and costs.
• Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2012). The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment for Henry and Geraldine Barabin against AstenJohnson and Scapa and remanded for a new trial because the district court admitted expert testimony without making Daubert reliability determinations.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The district court denied Geraldine Barabin's motion for a partial new trial on non-economic damages and denied Scapa Dryer Fabrics' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury's negligence verdict for the Barabins in place.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court ordered plaintiff's counsel James Nevin to show cause why he and Brayton Purcell LLP should not be sanctioned ($1,000 and a written reprimand) for quoting an excluded exhibit to the jury in the trial against Scapa Dryer Fabrics.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The district court denied Scapa Dryer Fabrics' motion for summary judgment, so Geraldine Barabin's claim over her husband's mesothelioma goes to trial.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court granted in part and denied in part Scapa's two motions to exclude expert testimony: it barred DePasquale's numerical exposure range and the causation testimony of Drs. Smith and Cohen, but allowed the rest of Barabin's exposure and causation experts (Brodkin, Tarin with limits, Compton).
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Felts, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court excluded the testimony of plaintiff Geraldine Barabin's expert, Dr. Arnold Brody, as needlessly cumulative of another expert's testimony, a ruling that favored defendant Scapa Dryer Felts.
• Barawa v. Acker Drill Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment except for the unopposed loss of consortium claim, which was dismissed; plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Barbara Commarata v. Cook, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2005). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Merchants Mutual Insurance Company was Azor Drywall's carrier, so the appellants Azor and Merchants lost and the widow's death benefits claim stood.
• Barbarino v. BASF Catalysts LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Honeywell had not met its initial burden, so the plaintiff, Joan Barbarino, prevailed on the motion.
• Barbarino v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court granted plaintiff Joan Barbarino's motion for a default judgment on liability against R.C.A. Rubber Company, which never appeared, and referred the amount of damages to a special referee.
• Barden v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2023). The Appellate Division reversed the judgments for the four plaintiffs (about $37.3 million compensatory and $186.5 million punitive) against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and remanded for new trials.
• Barile v. 3M Company, Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2013). The court reversed the jury's $1.78 million verdict against Foster Wheeler because the statute of repose barred all claims against it, and affirmed the rulings and verdict in favor of Exxon Mobil on the plaintiff's cross-appeal.
• Barker v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2023). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the four former B & B executive officers, dismissing the Barker heirs' claims against them with prejudice.
• Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Hennessy Industries against the Barker family's wrongful death claims, with one justice dissenting.
• Barkley v. 4520 Corp., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims against it with prejudice, struck the Carpenter affidavit, and denied the remaining motions as moot.
• Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2014). The en banc Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's orders denying Colgate-Palmolive's Rule 11 and Rule 60(b)(3) motions, holding that the court had jurisdiction to consider them, and remanded for the district court to rule on the merits.
• Barlow v. John Crane Houdaille, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2012). The court granted Joyce Barlow's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's fraudulent joinder argument, denied her request for fees, and did not rule on Colgate's motion for judgment on the pleadings.