Asbestos Cases A–Z: B

351 decisions whose name begins with B.

• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Hopeman's motion for partial summary judgment in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional tort claim, and denied it in part, so the plaintiffs' single business enterprise (alter ego) claim against Hopeman went forward.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied, without prejudice, defendant American Insurance Company's two summary judgment motions (products hazard exclusion and no exposure during the policy period), leaving plaintiffs' claims against AIC as Eagle's alleged insurer in place.
• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, 2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and barred American Honda Motor Co. from deposing plaintiff William Bedford, because of the health risk to him and the defendant's late request.
• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, 2020). The federal district court granted American Honda Motor Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Bedford plaintiffs' claims for lack of evidence that a Honda product caused Beverly Bedford's mesothelioma and death.
• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2020). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American Honda Motor Company, refusing to consider the plaintiffs' Lohrmann Test argument because they first raised it in a motion for reconsideration.
• Bednar v. Dana Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2008). The Superior Court reversed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Dana Corporation and remanded for a new trial, because the plaintiff was limited to three peremptory challenges instead of four.
• Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (Iowa Supreme Court, 1993). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Joseph Beeman after the jury verdict, upholding the evidence rulings, Keene's liability, and the trial court's setting aside of the punitive damages and the lost-life-opportunity award, so Manville Fund and Keene lost and Beeman's cross-appeal also failed.
• Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1993). The trial court granted the plaintiff estate's post-trial motion and ordered a new trial limited to damages, finding the $65,000 and $5,000 awards inadequate and not a compromise verdict, against defendants GAF, National Gypsum, Owens Corning and U.S. Gypsum.
• Behrmann v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The district court granted Propulsion Controls Engineering's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, ruling against plaintiff Ronald Behrmann.
• Behrmann v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Aurora Pump Company's summary judgment motion, dismissing it from the case, and denied Aurora's motion to strike the plaintiff's maritime expert's report; Behrmann lost against Aurora.
• Behrmann v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The district court denied Meriden Molded Plastic's motion for summary judgment without prejudice under Rule 56(d), so plaintiff Behrmann can take more discovery, even though it found his current exposure evidence insufficient.
• Behshid v. Bondex International, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for plaintiff Saeed Behshid against Bondex International, Inc., which had to pay costs on appeal.
• Beierschmitt v. Grobet File Company OF America, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Grobet's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for the Beierschmitt plaintiffs, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Belac v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2018). The court denied Evenheat Kiln's motion for leave to renew its summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss her claims against Evenheat without prejudice.
• Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Dickson (Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the Dickson family against Bell Helicopter Textron and rendered a take-nothing judgment, because there was no evidence of the gross negligence elements.
• Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The court denied General Electric's motion in limine (joined by John Crane) to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the plaintiff estate won the ruling.
• Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The court denied the defendants' (John Crane, Velan Valve and Honeywell) Daubert motion to limit the plaintiff's expert Dr. Vuskovich's testimony, and found a hearing unnecessary.
• Bell v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted Northwell's motion to intervene and AII's (joined by WCD) motion to vacate the September 25, 2020 protective order covering Mrs. Bell's identification as a subject of the Moline talc study. It denied the motions to seal, and plaintiff and Northwell lost on all three.
• Bell v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted American International Industries' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Lloyd Bell's claims because AII was not a legal successor to Neslemur under North Carolina law.
• Bell v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The district court denied third-party defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service, to strike the third-party complaint, and to abstain or stay in favor of the Delaware case, so American International Industries' indemnity claim goes forward; it also denied AII's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
• Bell v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The court denied American International Industries' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, granted it as to the civil conspiracy claim, and denied plaintiff Bell's request to amend his complaint.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court ruled that Louisiana law, not Idaho law, governs both the survival claim and the wrongful death claim (including punitive damages) for the alleged Idaho exposures, favoring the plaintiffs' position on choice of law.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, leaving in place its exclusion of their experts' specific causation opinions, and clarified what the experts may say at trial.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to York International and Foster Wheeler Energy and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice, and denied summary judgment to General Electric, Crane, Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo), Aurora Pump, Atwood & Morrill, CBS, IMO Industries and Warren Pumps.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' partial summary judgment motion: it dismissed Vickie Campos's individual claims and John Bell's nonpecuniary wrongful death damages, but allowed the survival claim, Bell's pecuniary wrongful death claim, and the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering damages to proceed.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court ruled that, for the Idaho exposures, Louisiana law governs the survival claim (favoring the Bell plaintiffs) and Idaho law governs punitive damages on the wrongful death claim (favoring the defendants).
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' Daubert motions: defense experts Dr. Graham and Dr. Taragin may give general causation testimony but not specific causation opinions that the defendants' products did not cause Mr. Bell's mesothelioma.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court denied the defendants' motion to strike John Croix from the plaintiffs' witness list, allowed defendants to depose him, and allowed them to seek leave to supplement their expert reports.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court granted in part and denied in part the pump and valve defendants' motion to exclude studies and videos from plaintiffs' expert Dr. James Millette: most of his study testimony was allowed, but he may not call a study representative of Mr. Bell's likely exposure without a threshold showing, and the challenge to his videos was denied as premature.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions in limine: it excluded the plaintiffs' experts' specific causation opinions as unreliable but allowed them to testify on Mr. Bell's mesothelioma and general causation, and refused to strike Dr. Kradin or disqualify Dr. Kraus.
• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court denied without prejudice the ten defendants' summary judgment motions, set out its own maritime-law standard for manufacturer liability for asbestos it did not add to its product, and ordered the defendants to re-file briefs under that standard.
• BellSouth Telecommunications v. WR Grace (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1996). The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for W.R. Grace, holding BellSouth's claim for asbestos abatement costs was time-barred under Connecticut's three-year product liability limitation period.
• Belton v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiffs Belton and Crochet against Pittsburgh Corning and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court revealed settlement amounts to the jury and commented on the damages amount.
• Beltrami v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The trial court denied Gorman-Rupp's motion for summary judgment and denied Water Applications' cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gorman, without prejudice to renewal at trial, so plaintiffs kept their claims.
• Belvedere v. GS Blodgett Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2011). Affirmed summary judgment for Blodgett on Noella Belvedere's survival and wrongful death claims as time-barred, but reversed it on the wrongful death claims of the three Belvedere children, because a fact question remained.
• Benard v. Eagle, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2008). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the res judicata exception of Eagle, Inc. and OneBeacon, so all of the heirs' claims against them stayed dismissed; one judge dissented.
• Benavidez v. Fluor Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Fluor Corporation and directed the trial court to deny Fluor's motion, so plaintiff Michael Benavidez won.
• Beneficiaries of Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum (Oregon Supreme Court, 1997). The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's order denying the claim against Spectrum Motorwerks, Ltd. and SAIF, so the claimant's estate lost.
• Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corporation (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2005). Affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide and Georgia Pacific on the survival action as time-barred, but reversed it on the wrongful death action and remanded, so Elsie Benjamin may continue that claim.
• Bennett v. the Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, 2018). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment after a bench trial denying James Bennett's workers' compensation claim for asbestosis against self-insured employer Scotts Miracle-Gro, so Scotts prevailed.
• Bennett v. West Virginia Office OF Insurance Commissioner, W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 2016 (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 2016). The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Review's decision granting dependent's benefits to Minnie Bennett, upholding August 16, 1983 as the date of last exposure and Corning, Inc. as the sole chargeable employer.
• Benoit v. AW Smith Corporation (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2009). The court denied summary judgment motions by Utica Boiler, Keeler Dorr-Oliver Burner Co., and Sterling Fluid Systems, finding the plaintiff estate had raised a triable issue on product identification.
• Berensmann v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied defendant Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs William and Madelyn Berensmann's claims against it continue.
• Berg v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Colgate-Palmolive, holding that Berg and his wife failed to show a triable issue on whether the Mennen shave talc he used contained asbestos.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied Vanderbilt Minerals' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims for lack of causation, but granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims relating to AMACO products under the bulk supplier doctrine.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court granted defendant Gare Incorporated's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Gare, because Gare did not assume the liabilities of its predecessor, Old Gare.
• Berger v. Amchem Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2006). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger and Nygaard estates) prevailed.
• Bergeron v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 1991). The court granted Foster Wheeler and Flintkote partial summary judgment dismissing the daughter Loretta Ann Young's wrongful death claim as prescribed, granted Foster Wheeler partial summary judgment dismissing both plaintiffs' wrongful death claims because workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, and denied plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline to amend pleadings.
• Bergstrom v. Welco Manufacturing Company (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 1st Division, 2015). The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Welco Manufacturing and remanded, ruling for the Bergstroms because a genuine factual dispute existed about exposure to asbestos-containing Welcote joint compound.
• Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2025). The court granted Canal's summary judgment motion in full and Interstate's in part, ruling for Canal and Interstate on the Smith and Murray lawsuits and against Interstate on the Galier lawsuit, so Berkshire's contribution claim survived only as to Galier against Interstate.