Asbestos Cases A–Z: B

351 decisions whose name begins with B.

• Barnes v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2008). The trial court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for joint trials. It ordered Bougadis, Boyle, Priolo, Schnabel and Palmieri to be tried together and kept the Montross, Perdicaro, Enea and Iqbal cases separate, over the defendants' general opposition.
• Barnes v. Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 2023). The appeals court reversed summary judgment for Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Co. and remanded the case, with Roslyn Barnes's sanctions motion, to the trial court for further proceedings.
• Barnes v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GE with prejudice, because plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence that Barnes was exposed to an asbestos product made or supplied by GE.
• Barnes v. Keene Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1995). The Seventh Circuit reversed the refusal to impose joint and several liability and remanded for judgment against the four remaining defendants (Keene, Manville, Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Owens-Illinois), but affirmed the single judgment in all other respects, so widow Ruth Barnes won on liability and lost on the form of judgment.
• Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2000). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments, upholding the denial of new trials, so the estates of Beckmann and Rogers lost and Owens-Corning won.
• Barnett v. City of Yonkers (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1990). The court granted summary judgment to the City of Yonkers and architect Eli Rabineau, denied the Board of Education's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the Board's cross-claim against U.S. Gypsum for lack of service while denying Gypsum's summary judgment and Rule 11 motions.
• Barone v. Gatx Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 11th Appellate District, 2006). The appeals court reversed the trial court's denial of John Crane's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for John Crane over the executor's $32,600 verdict.
• Barr v. ACandS, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1997). The Court of Appeal affirmed all three judgments for the defendants (ACandS, Kaiser Cement, Alta Building Materials and Exxon), holding the plaintiffs' second asbestos suits were barred by the one-year limitations period of section 340.2.
• Barr v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Barr's successor against Parker-Hannifin and Standard Motor Products, rejecting Standard's evidentiary challenges and Parker's challenges to the punitive damages award.
• Barraford v. T & N Limited (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2014). The court granted T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for judgment on the pleadings (treated as summary judgment) because Nora Barraford's claims were time-barred and no tolling applied.
• Barraford v. T&N Limited (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2015). The First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for T&N, which held the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust's wrongful-death and tort claims on behalf of the Barraford estate time-barred.
• Barraford v. T&N Limited (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2013). The court denied T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for summary judgment against Nora Barraford, and granted the motion to strike in part (the medical journal articles) and denied it in part (the Heinen deposition and other exhibits).
• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Westinghouse (CBS Corporation) timely removed the case and plausibly asserted a colorable federal officer defense.
• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2021). The district court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of John Crane Inc., Goulds Pumps LLC, Crane Co., and Schneider Electric USA (Square D) and dismissed them from the case, because no evidence showed their conduct was a substantial factor in Mr. Barrett's illness.
• Barrosse v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion and directed entry of a Rule 54(b) partial final judgment in favor of Avondale and Lamorak, following its earlier summary judgment dismissing them on LHWCA preemption grounds.
• Barrosse v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and Lamorak Insurance's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' negligence claims against them with prejudice because the LHWCA preempts those claims.
• Barrosse v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2023). The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for Huntington Ingalls (Avondale), holding Barrosse's state-law tort claims were not preempted by the LHWCA, and remanded for further proceedings in favor of the Barrosse plaintiffs.
• Barry v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1st Division, 1996). The appellate court affirmed the judgment on the jury's roughly $12.3 million verdict (reduced to about $11 million for settlements) for the Barry estate against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting OCF's challenges to the videotape, instructions, verdict form and damages amount.
• Bartel EX rel. Estate, Rich v. AC Prod. Liab. Tr. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2006). The court ordered that the sea-based claim be tried in admiralty under federal maritime law, the land-based claim under Montana law, and both before a single jury, so the estate's choice-of-law and jury arguments largely prevailed.
• Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2014). The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, granted the plaintiff's motions to remand, and sent the case back to the Louisiana state court, so the removing defendants (APL and Hess) lost.
• Bartel v. Alcoa Steamship Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting Plaintiff's motions to remand and returning the case to the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge, because the Jones Act claims were not removable under § 1441 and APL had not shown a causal nexus for federal officer removal; the defendants lost.
• Bartel v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2004). After a bench trial, the court entered a verdict for John Crane, finding the estate of Rolf Lindstrom failed to prove that John Crane gaskets and packing were a substantial factor or proximate cause of his peritoneal mesothelioma.
• Barton v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, ordering three joint trials: the three lung cancer plaintiffs together, four mesothelioma plaintiffs together, and the three shipyard or Army mesothelioma plaintiffs together.
• Baruch v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Baxter Healthcare Corporation's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiffs Ester and Nerye Baruch's claims against it continued.
• Baruch v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Fisher Scientific Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Ester and Nerye Baruch's claims against Fisher continue.
• Bashore v. Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for Fraser's Boiler Service and remanded, holding the record allowed an inference that Mr. Bashore worked at Lockheed's Seattle shipyard in 1970 and was exposed to Fraser's asbestos.
• Basil-Flippen v. General Electric Company (Maryland Appellate Court, 2024). The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for Westinghouse (Paramount Global) against the Basil estate and children on their strict liability design defect claim.
• Bassier v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Burnham, LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Bassier's claims against Burnham remain pending.
• Batchelor v. American Optical Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2016). The district court granted the Batchelors' motion to remand the case to Florida state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over CBS/Westinghouse's federal officer removal, and denied their request for attorney's fees and costs.
• Bath Iron Works Corp. v. US Dept. of Labor (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2003). The First Circuit denied Bath Iron Works' petition for review and affirmed the Benefits Review Board, which had upheld the award of death benefits to widow Gertrude Knight, finding her claim timely.
• Bauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 1984). The court denied Johnson Asbestos Corporation's motion for summary judgment on limitations, so plaintiff Bauer's wrongful death suit proceeds, and granted its motion to dismiss only the consortium claim arising from the husband's death.
• Bauer v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1988). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the widow's motions for a new trial and judgment n.o.v., leaving in place the jury's special verdicts for all defendants (Raymark, Armstrong, Eagle-Picher, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois, Pittsburgh Corning).
• Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1995). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, evenly divided, affirmed the Superior Court's order, leaving in place summary judgment for the asbestos defendants on the widow's survival action as time-barred.
• Baumgartner v. American Standard, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2015). The court applied Ohio law and granted summary judgment to Crane, Honeywell and Robertshaw under the bare-metal defense, and to GE, CBS, Cleaver-Brooks, Foster Wheeler, Riley and Oakfabco under Ohio's statute of repose, so the Baumgartners lost on those claims.
• Bayer Corporation v. Toney, W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 2013 (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 2013). The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Review's order granting Luann Toney dependents' benefits, ruling against Bayer Corporation.
• BD. OF Educ. v. Ambach (New York Supreme Court, Monroe, 1984). The court granted the Commissioner of Education's cross motion for summary judgment and denied the Hilton school board's motion, holding that friable asbestos ceilings at Northwood Elementary School were an imminent health hazard under the School Asbestos Safety Act.
• Beagan v. Akebono Brake Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2025). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to American Honda Motor Co. and Nissan North America, so plaintiff, the decedent's estate administrator, kept New York long-arm jurisdiction over them.
• Beany v. Ohio State Univ. (Ohio Court of Claims, 2009). After a bench trial on liability, the Ohio Court of Claims entered judgment for defendant Ohio State University, finding plaintiff Mark Beany failed to prove an employer intentional tort, and his family's derivative loss of consortium claim failed with it.
• Beaudrie v. Anchor Packing Co. (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1998). The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's orders on remand, which let the employers and the dust fund keep their workers' compensation liens against the widows' wrongful death recoveries, and the widows lost on every point they raised.
• Beaudrie v. Anchor Packing Co. (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1994). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's application of the compensation fund's lien to loss-of-consortium damages, reversed it as to the recoveries of the decedents' adult nondependent children, and held the fund waived its cross-appeal about the allocation of settlement proceeds.
• Becht v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1992). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Ann Becht against Owens-Corning, holding it was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity and that the jury's 40% fault allocation and the denial of a new trial were proper.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the jury verdict for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding the adverse-inference sanction improper and the evidence of Bechtel's possession and control of the plant insufficient.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2017). The appeals court reversed the jury judgment for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding insufficient evidence that Bechtel controlled the premises and error in the adverse inference instruction.
• Becker v. Baron Bros. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1994). The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division's affirmance of a jury verdict for plaintiff Edith Becker against General Motors and Englewood Brake and remanded for retrial, because the jury was wrongly told that all asbestos products sold without warnings are defective.
• Beckering v. Shell Oil Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Shell Oil Company, holding Shell owed no duty to Beckering, who alleged mesothelioma from laundering her husband's work clothes; one justice dissented.
• Beckering v. Shell Oil Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal, on remand from the California Supreme Court, reversed summary judgment for Shell Oil Company and remanded with directions to deny the motion, holding Shell owed Beckering a duty of care.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Ford, General Electric, Foster Wheeler, ViacomCBS (Westinghouse), Morse TEC (BorgWarner) and Navistar, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Volkswagen and Honeywell (joined by Ford, Pneumo Abex and Morse TEC) and denied the defendants' motions in limine, so the plaintiffs' causation experts could testify, limited to opinions on cumulative asbestos exposure.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, dismissing the Becnel heirs' intentional tort, fraud and concealment claims, and denied Morse TEC's request for oral argument as unnecessary.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Morse TEC's motion, joined by many co-defendants, for summary judgment on contributory negligence, so the Becnel family's claims continue.