Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• C&d Contractors, Inc. v. McLaughlin (Delaware Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court granted in part and denied in part the Estate's motion, awarding it $27,490.00 in attorneys' fees at reduced hourly rates and $221.25 in costs against employer C&D Contractors.
• Cabasug v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the Cabasugs' motion: the sophisticated user defense survives for defendants, but the sophisticated purchaser defense was struck for lack of evidence; Aurora Pump's summary judgment motion was denied.
• Cabasug v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 2013). The court denied the Cabasugs' motion to apply Hawaii substantive law and ruled that admiralty law governs their asbestos tort claims against the defendant product makers.
• Cabasug v. Crane Company (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 2014). The district court granted summary judgment to Maxim Evaporators, LLC and Viad Corp. against plaintiffs Robert and Joyce Cabasug, finding no genuine issue that Cabasug was exposed to asbestos supplied by their alleged predecessors.
• Cabasug v. Crane Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, 2013). The court granted Plaintiffs partial summary judgment striking the defendants' sophisticated purchaser defense, denied Plaintiffs' motion to strike the sophisticated user defense, and denied Aurora Pump Company's summary judgment motion.
• Cabasug v. Crane Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, 2013). The court granted summary judgment to Maxim Evaporators, LLC and Viad Corp, finding no genuine issue that Cabasug was exposed to asbestos supplied by their alleged predecessors, and that Viad was not shown liable for its predecessor's subsidiary.
• Cabasug v. Crane Company (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 2013). The court granted Ametek's summary judgment motion, granted Aurora Pump's and Crane's motions in part (as to external insulation and flange gaskets and pads), denied Cleaver Brooks' motion, and denied the Cabasugs' motion on the duty to warn.
• Cabot Csc Corporation v. Aearo Technologies LLC (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2017). Affirmed summary judgment for Aearo, holding that Cabot, not Aearo, was contractually responsible for defending and paying the coal mine dust silica claims.
• Cadiere v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The magistrate judge granted plaintiff Bradley Cadiere's motion for leave to file an amended complaint adding a direct asbestos exposure claim against Huntington Ingalls (Avondale), and rejected Avondale's judicial estoppel argument.
• Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal summarily reversed the summary judgment for Metalclad Insulation and vacated the judgment, holding Metalclad was collaterally estopped on causation of Cadlo's mesothelioma, but declined to limit the remand to damages only.
• Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Anthony and Maxlyn Cadlo against Metalclad Insulation and John Crane, including the backdated judgment, the future economic and pain-and-suffering damages, and the expert fees and prejudgment interest.
• Cadlo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2004). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens-Illinois, upholding the demurrer to the fraud, misrepresentation and concert-of-action claims and the summary judgment on the product claims, against plaintiffs Anthony and Maxlyn Cadlo.
• Cahill Construction Company v. Superior Court of Alameda County (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal denied the writ petition by Cahill Construction and other defendants, holding the trial court correctly refused to allow more than 14 hours of defense deposition of mesothelioma plaintiff Edward Richards, and rejecting the due process challenge; plaintiffs prevailed.
• Calamia v. Parish of Jefferson (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2020). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment granting the Parish of Jefferson's exception of prescription, dismissing the Calamia children's claims against the Parish.
• Calamia v. Parish of Jefferson (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court vacated the trial court's judgment granting the Parish of Jefferson's exception of prescription, which had dismissed the Calamia children's claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Calewarts v. CR Meyer & Sons Company (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 2015). The court reversed the judgment dismissing June Calewarts' claims, ordering that several of the defendants' motions in limine be denied in whole or part, while upholding the exclusion of lay opinion that the insulation contained asbestos and of the OSHA documents (a partial win for Calewarts against CR Meyer, International Paper and others).
• Calewarts v. CR Meyer and Sons Company (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Philip Morris USA, but reversed summary judgment for CR Meyer and Sons, International Paper (and Thilmany), and Colonial Heights Packaging and remanded for further proceedings, siding with June Calewarts on those defendants.
• Caligiuri v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant QCP, Inc. f/k/a Bakers Pride Oven Company's motion to preclude plaintiffs' causation experts Drs. Moline, Frank and Zhang, so plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Caligiuri v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied defendant QCP, Inc. f/k/a Bakers Pride Oven Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Mario and Susan Caligiuri's claims against it continue.
• Caligiuri v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied defendant Olympic Glove & Safety Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Mario and Susan Caligiuri's claims against Olympic continue.
• Callanan v. Chesterton (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 5th Division, 2020). The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiffs, Mary Callanan and Kelley Miller.
• Callaway v. Anco Insulation, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court granted Anco's writ in part, reversing the denial of summary judgment on the wrongful death and intentional tort claims (Anco won), but left in place the denial as to the survival action in negligence (plaintiffs won).
• Cameron v. Atlantic Richfield Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2019). The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for PacifiCorp, holding the 1967 repose statute bars Linda Cameron's claims arising from construction activities but not those arising from PacifiCorp's status as a premises owner, and remanded.
• Camiolo v. American Biltrite Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiffs raised fact issues on whether decedent was exposed to asbestos from Goodyear floor tiles.
• Campbell v. AC Equipment Services Corporation, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1993). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the third-amended complaint, ruling for A.C. Equipment, Alemi, the City of Springfield and its employees against the five plaintiff workers, because no count adequately pleaded a cause of action.
• Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 6th Division, 2018). The appellate court reversed the circuit court's denial of General Electric's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded with directions to dismiss GE as a defendant, so GE won and the plaintiff lost on this issue.
• Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of Campbell's action for failure to prosecute, finding it was less than two years old, but dismissed the appeal of the earlier stay order as untimely and upheld the denials of relief from the stay.
• Campbell v. AO Smith Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2016). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order approving the settlement and holding that the widow, Betty Welles Campbell, was the only wrongful death beneficiary entitled to proceeds, defeating the adult children's claims and their requests to remove her and sanction her and her counsel.
• Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff Honer (continued by her daughter Mary Campbell) against Ford, holding Ford owed her no duty, so Ford prevailed.
• Campbell v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2002). Affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed Shipbuilding, holding Campbell could not sue Lockheed in tort as a third-party premises owner because Lockheed was also his employer under the Longshore Act and its liability was exclusive.
• Campise v. Arkema, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2023). The trial court denied Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion on product identification, asbestos content and causation, so the plaintiff executor's claims go forward, but it granted the motion on punitive damages.
• Campo v. Asbestospray Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1990). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the respondents (Turner & Newall, PLC, et al.), holding the plaintiffs sought an advisory opinion about serious injuries not yet suffered, and denied class certification as moot.
• Campo v. Asbestospray Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 1988). The court granted the asbestos defendants' motions to dismiss the class action complaint, including derivative claims, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.
• Campolongo v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 1988). On defendants' pretrial motion in limine, the court ruled it would have severed the strict liability claim from the negligence and punitive damage claims, in exchange for defendants waiving assumption of the risk and superseding cause; the case then settled.
• Cantrell v. Adams Mfg Co., Inc. (West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2024). The West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's order, which had denied Mildred Cantrell's claim for dependents' benefits against Adams Mfg Co., and remanded for further proceedings.
• Cantrell v. Adience, Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2010). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Borg-Warner, ruling that Alice and Bernard Cantrell had no evidence she was exposed to a Borg-Warner asbestos product during her employment.
• Capital Holding Corp. v. Bailey (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1994). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the negligence claims, upholding summary judgment for Capital Holding because no cause of action had accrued without a present harmful change. It reversed the dismissal of the Baileys' outrageous conduct claim and sent it back for trial.
• Caradonna v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The court denied the motion by the LIRR and MTA to dismiss plaintiff Caradonna's FELA negligence claim as preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, so the claim against the railroad went forward.
• Carbonaro v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1981). The federal court granted Owens-Corning Fiberglas's motion for summary judgment, holding the plaintiffs' asbestos suit barred by the prior state-court judgment for the defendants, so the plaintiffs lost.
• Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2009). The court reversed the judgment against Cardinal Industrial Insulation and remanded for a directed verdict in its favor, and rejected the Norris estate's cross-appeal claims, including its challenge to the directed verdict for Scientific Design.
• Carey Canada Inc. v. California Union Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1989). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the excess insurers (Home, National Union, Columbia Casualty) and against Carey Canada and Celotex, holding the policies' "asbestosis" exclusions bar all asbestos-related disease claims, and dismissed the actions.
• Carey Canada v. California Union Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1989). The court denied the plaintiffs' (Carey Canada and Celotex) motion for partial summary judgment, holding the asbestosis exclusions in the excess insurers' policies ambiguous and allowing extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent, which favored the insurers at this stage.
• Carey Canada, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1991). The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the 1977 National Union policy exclusion was ambiguous and covered all asbestos claims, but vacated and remanded as to the Columbia Casualty and 1979 National Union policies, so Carey Canada and Celotex won in part and Columbia Casualty and National Union won in part.
• Carey v. JP Bushnell Packing Supply Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2011). The court granted the Careys' motion to remand to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, finding MSA had not shown that J.P. Bushnell was fraudulently joined.
• Carilli v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted non-party Trane's motion to the extent of quashing defendant Burnham LLC's trial subpoena for a Trane witness, denied Trane's request for costs, and directed Burnham to use Trane's interrogatory answers at trial under the CMO.
• Carlson v. 84 Lumber Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2011). The court granted in part the defendants' (CertainTeed and American Biltrite) Motion to Apply Foreign Law, holding that they had not waived it, but ruled that Pennsylvania law, not Michigan law, governs the plaintiffs' claims.
• Carlson v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2020). The court granted General Electric's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Carlsons' claims against it with prejudice, along with Ms. Carlson's consortium claim and the cross-claims of Foster Wheeler and Crane Co.
• Carpin v. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Supreme Court, 2024). The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and Clifton Associates, holding the plaintiff's wrongful death and negligence claims were barred by the twenty-year statute of repose and that the statute did not violate Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution.
• Carrera v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended denying Johnson & Johnson's request to stay and granting Dana Carrera's motion to remand her case to California state court, for lack of bankruptcy 'related to' jurisdiction or, alternatively, on equitable grounds.
• Carroll v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to ABB, Atwood & Morrill, A.W. Chesterton, Crane Co., Crosby Valve, Flowserve and Ingersoll Rand, and denied it to John Crane Inc., so the claims against John Crane, including punitive damages, proceed.