Asbestos Cases A–Z: B

351 decisions whose name begins with B.

• Bernard v. Brookfield Prop. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion to renew its opposition and granted Citigroup's summary judgment motion as to Colgate's cross-claims, so Citigroup won and Colgate lost.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Prop. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted defendant Ruderman's motion to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against it, without prejudice to recommencement, denied its premature summary judgment request, and denied Colgate's cross motion to treat its late notice of claim as timely served.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Props. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court confirmed, as modified, the Special Master's recommendation: Colgate-Palmolive could not claim attorney-client privilege over its pre-deposition talks with former employee Dr. Turse, but its counsel properly asserted work-product protection against broad questions about those talks, so the plaintiffs could submit written questions or reopen the deposition while avoiding counsel's mental impressions.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Props. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court confirmed the referee's report and denied summary judgment to Brookfield, New Water Street Corporation and Retirement Systems of Alabama, and denied RSA's personal jurisdiction motion, all with leave to renew after discovery, so the estate and co-defendant Colgate prevailed for now.
• Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 1986). Answering questions certified by the federal district court, the Maine court held that state-of-the-art evidence is admissible in a failure-to-warn claim under section 221, that wrongful death damages are recoverable in a section 221 action, and that section 221 applies to pre-1973 inhalation only if the disease manifested after October 3, 1973; this was a partial win for each side, with two justices dissenting on the third question.
• Berry v. American Standard, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2008). The appellate court affirmed the order barring use of Howard Berry's discovery deposition as trial evidence, and affirmed the summary judgments for the defendants, so his widow lost.
• Berry v. Anco Insulations (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed the jury verdict and the judgment after JNOV for Lynda Berry against Foster Wheeler, which totaled $2.25 million after Olin Corp.'s virile share was deducted, and rejected all of Foster Wheeler's assignments of error.
• Berry v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2000). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and remanded for trial, holding the plaintiffs (Berry's estate and widow) raised a genuine issue of fact on exposure to Brower-supplied products.
• Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 1982). The court granted plaintiff Bertrand's partial summary judgment motion only on whether asbestos dust can cause asbestosis and mesothelioma, barring the defendants from litigating that point, and denied it on the state of the art defense and whether the products were unreasonably dangerous.
• Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1982). The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and struck the state-of-the-art defense, ruling for the worker plaintiffs and against the asbestos manufacturer defendants.
• Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries on the strict products liability and negligence claims, holding plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend, and affirmed as to all other causes of action.
• Betts v. Manville Personal Injury Trust (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1992). The appellate court reversed the plaintiffs' jury judgments against the Manville Trust and against Grefco and remanded for new trials, but affirmed the dismissals, summary judgment, directed verdicts and setoff ruling that went against Dietrich, Smith, the Mendiolas and Stewart.
• Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the plaintiff's 'any-exposure' expert opinion under Frye, which restored the basis for summary judgment for Allied Signal and Ford against the executrix; the case was remanded to consider any remaining preserved issues.
• Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2010). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Allied Signal and Ford (and the other friction product defendants) and remanded, holding that the trial court wrongly granted the defendants' Frye motion excluding the estate's causation experts.
• Betzner v. Boeing Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2018). The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's sua sponte remand to Illinois state court and remanded for further proceedings, holding Boeing's notice of removal was sufficient; Boeing won and the Betzners lost on this point.
• Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc. (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2024). The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Alcoa on the Beverage family's premises-liability claim and remanded for the district court to apply the unmodified land possessor-entrant duty of care; Alcoa lost and the family won.
• Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc. (Iowa Supreme Court, 2022). The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and reversed summary judgment for Alcoa and Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation, remanding for further proceedings, so the Beverage plaintiffs prevailed over both defendants.
• Beverage v. Alcoa, Inc. (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2021). The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Alcoa and Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation, holding the Beverage estate and children's asbestos claims were barred by Iowa Code section 686B.7(5), and declined to reach an unpreserved due process claim.
• Bier v. Am. Biltrite (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2012). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide, ruling that Bier's estate had no evidence that the decedent was exposed to Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos.
• Biljetina v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2025). The court granted L'Oreal USA's motion to dismiss the claims against it as time-barred, dismissing the complaint against L'Oreal only, and denied L'Oreal's motion for sanctions against the plaintiff.
• Billok v. Union Carbide Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide and remitted for a new trial, because deposition testimony from other lawsuits was wrongly admitted; plaintiff Billok prevailed on the appeal.
• Bischofsberger v. AO Smith Water Products (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Verde and Ploeckelmann mesothelioma actions for a joint trial, and ordered the Verde case tried first and the Ploeckelmann case immediately after.
• Bitco General Insurance Corporation V Dash Building Material Center, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court denied Dash Building Material Center's motion to abstain and dismiss, so BITCO's federal declaratory action against Dash continues.
• Black v. Abex Corp. (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1999). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Allied-Signal, Borg-Warner, Chrysler and General Motors, dismissing Rochelle Black's market share and alternative liability claims.
• Black v. ACandS, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001). The court reversed summary judgment for defendants that was based on the ten-year statute of repose, and affirmed summary judgment for Rapid-American, Universal Refractories, ACandS and Brand for lack of product identification evidence, remanding the case.
• Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2014). The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Illinois Central Railroad, which had been based on a release from an earlier asbestosis settlement, and remanded for further proceedings, so the widow's FELA claim continues.
• Blackston v. Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1985). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for AC&S, Inc. against pipefitter Benjamin Blackston, holding that his evidence could not show he worked with or near AC&S's asbestos-containing products.
• Blakely v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th Appellate District, 2019). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Goodyear on the estate's premises, product and supplier liability claims and remanded for further proceedings, rejecting only the estate's first assignment of error.
• Blancha v. Raymark Industries (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1992). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's order granting plaintiffs a new trial, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Keene Corporation consistent with the first jury verdict, undoing the plaintiffs' win at the retrial.
• Blandford v. A-Best Prods. Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2006). The appeals court reversed the $6.4 million jury verdict for plaintiff Kathleen Blandford against Garlock Sealing Technologies and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court wrongly allowed a surprise expert and video on rebuttal.
• Blanding v. Director, Owcp (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1999). The Second Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board and reinstated the ALJ's award of death benefits to Frouwke Blanding, holding her claim timely against Oldam Shipping and Commercial Union.
• Blase v. Allied Signal Inc. (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1996). The trial court denied Mildred Blase's motion for reconsideration and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, because she had no medical expert to prove causation of her husband's lung cancer.
• Blazek v. Nicolet, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1988). Affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the strict liability counts against Nicolet and the other asbestos defendants as barred by the statute of repose; the plaintiff's estate lost.
• Blouin v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The district court granted the Blouin family's motion to remand and sent the case back to Louisiana state court, rejecting Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s federal officer removal.
• Blow v. OneBEACON America Insurance Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2016). The appellate court granted the plaintiffs' writ, agreed that Orleans Parish was improper venue for the direct action claims against OneBeacon as insurer of six executive officers (a win for OneBeacon), but amended the judgment to delete the dismissal and remanded for transfer to a proper venue (a partial win for the Blow plaintiffs).
• Blystone v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The court granted DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for DAP against the Blystone plaintiffs, because they had no non-speculative evidence that the DAP caulk Mr. Blystone used contained asbestos.
• Blystone v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The court granted U.S. Steel's summary judgment motion as uncontested on the USS Thuban claims, which plaintiffs dropped, and denied it on the claims about exposure in the open hearth area, so those claims by John and Bridget Blystone go forward.
• BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court for County OF Los Angeles (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal granted BNSF Railway's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its denial of BNSF's motion to quash and to grant the motion, because California lacked general personal jurisdiction over BNSF; the Kralovetz family lost.
• Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court, 1989). The court affirmed the appellate court in part, reinstating the school districts' strict liability, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against the asbestos defendants. It upheld dismissal of the fraud, warranty, restitution, Consumer Fraud Act and implied Asbestos Abatement Act claims, and remanded.
• Bobo v. Agco Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the Tennessee Valley Authority's motion for summary judgment on discretionary-function grounds, dismissing Mrs. Bobo's failure-to-warn and training claims but letting her claims over exposure limits, monitoring, protective equipment and lockers, and medical examinations proceed.
• Bobo v. Agco Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted TVA's discretionary-function summary judgment motion in part, dismissing Mrs. Bobo's failure-to-warn and asbestos-training claims, and denied it as to her claims about exposure limits, monitoring, protective equipment and lockers, and medical examinations.
• Bobo v. Agco Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted the Tennessee Valley Authority's unopposed motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim and strike the jury demand, and denied plaintiff Barbara Bobo's motion to amend her complaint to add twelve more years of alleged exposure.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2017). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's bench-trial finding that the Tennessee Valley Authority was liable to the Bobo estate, vacated the damages award because it included written-off medical expenses, and remanded for recalculation.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2015). After a bench trial, the court found for the plaintiffs (the estate of Barbara Bobo) against the Tennessee Valley Authority, awarding $3,000,000 for pain and suffering and $537,131.82 in medical expenses, with TVA entitled to a $136,176.37 offset for asbestos trust settlements.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2015). After a bench trial, the federal court did not enter judgment for either side and instead certified two unsettled questions of Alabama law (a premises owner's duty in take-home asbestos cases, and the causation standard for multiple exposures) to the Alabama Supreme Court in the case brought by Barbara Bobo's estate against the Tennessee Valley Authority.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2014). The court denied the Tennessee Valley Authority's motion to exclude Dr. Eugene Mark's specific causation opinion, so the plaintiffs prevailed on that point, and held the motion directed at Dr. Wulsin moot because plaintiffs withdrew her specific causation testimony.
• Boldini v. Owens Corning (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2001). The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois and remanded, holding the construction statute of repose did not bar plaintiffs' claims based on Sprinkmann's sale and distribution of asbestos products.
• Boley v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010). The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' summary judgment for Goodyear Tire & Rubber, so the executor of Mary Adams's estate and Clayton Adams lost their take-home asbestos claims against Goodyear.
• Bondurant v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Gould Electronics' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing plaintiff Bondurant's claims against Gould without prejudice and denying jurisdictional discovery.
• Bondurant v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Eastman Kodak Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed plaintiff Terry Bondurant's claims against Kodak without prejudice, denying jurisdictional discovery.