Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• Condon v. Advance Thermal Hydronics, Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2018). The Appellate Division vacated the judgment against Pecora Corporation and reversed the denial of Pecora's summary judgment motion, ruling for Pecora over plaintiffs William and Debbie Condon.
• Cone v. Agco Corp. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2011). The Rhode Island Superior Court denied Detroit Diesel Corporation's motion for summary judgment in four consolidated asbestos cases, so the plaintiffs' claims against DDC go forward.
• Connell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2010). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments for Lockheed Martin (summary judgment) and Goodyear (summary judgment on the intentional tort and negligent undertaking claims, a partial directed verdict, and a defense jury verdict on supplier liability), and dismissed Goodyear's cross-appeal for lack of a final appealable order.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The court granted summary judgment to General Electric, Crane, Foster Wheeler, Warren Pumps, IMO Industries, Buffalo Pumps, Armstrong International and CBS, and denied the plaintiffs relief on their strict liability and negligence claims.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted defendants' summary judgment motions in Conner, Prange and Stone only to the extent they sought application of maritime law, and denied them in Willis, where state law applies.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions in Conner, Prange and Stone to the extent they sought application of maritime law, and denied the same motions in Willis, which will be decided under state law.
• Connor v. Brann (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2018). The court granted the New York City Department of Correction officials' motion to dismiss the pro se prisoner's asbestos-exposure claims, and allowed him until November 5, 2018 to file a proposed amended complaint.
• Connor v. Covil Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Covil Corporation, holding that Darrell Connor, suing for his father's death, had not shown enough exposure to Covil's asbestos insulation.
• Connor v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The court granted summary judgment to Covil Corporation and Daniel International Corporation on all claims because the plaintiff could not show Mr. Connor was exposed to their asbestos insulation with sufficient frequency, regularity and proximity, and denied the Daubert motions as moot.
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ray EX rel. Boyd (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2010). The court granted the estate's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Conrail's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Rail Act does not bar the estate from pursuing Conrail as a successor in the Ohio FELA asbestos case.
• Consolidated Rail v. Ray ex rel. Estate of Boyd (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 2011). The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for the estate of Harold Boyd (represented by James Ray) and against Conrail, holding that Conrail was not shielded from liability for Boyd's pre-conveyance asbestos exposure.
• Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1995). The Second Circuit vacated the loss-of-consortium award to Frances Consorti, ordered a new trial on John Consorti's pain and suffering unless he accepts remittitur to $3.5 million, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, which had appealed.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning (New York Court of Appeals, 1995). The New York Court of Appeals answered the Second Circuit's certified question in the negative, so Frances Consorti had no loss of consortium claim against Owens-Corning, which prevailed on that question.
• Consorti v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1995). The Second Circuit did not decide the appeal; it certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether a spouse's loss of consortium claim is valid when mesothelioma arose after the marriage from asbestos exposure before it, and kept jurisdiction pending the answer.
• Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Co., Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2024). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Lenox's post-trial motion, leaving the bench-trial judgment for Constantine in place, and reversed in part the order on delay damages, finding three periods wrongly excluded and remanding.
• Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2024). The Superior Court vacated the order dismissing Esterline Technologies, holding it violated the coordinate jurisdiction rule, and remanded for a new trial limited to whether Esterline is liable for Lenox's conduct; Constantine won on this appeal.
• Constanza v. Sparta Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, so the case stays in federal court.
• Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2008). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment after a nonjury trial and declared for the insurers (Continental Casualty and American Casualty, together CNA) against the defendant class of asbestos claimants: the claims fall within products hazard/completed operations coverage, laches and other defenses apply, coverage is triggered by injury-in-fact, and excess policy RDU 8047261 is exhausted.
• Continental Casualty v. Chatz for Cfb/wfb Trust (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2018). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's judgment, holding Continental Casualty estopped from contesting coverage and liable to the Liquidating Trust for $2,512,444 plus interest, and affirmed the Section 155 penalty and attorney fees against Continental; it did not reach the denial of leave to sue in state court.
• Continental Insurance Company v. Honeywell International, Inc. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2017). The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division, upholding the trial court's partial summary judgments for Honeywell: New Jersey allocation law applied to the excess policies, and Honeywell had no allocation share for years after 1987, when insurance became unavailable.
• Contois v. Able Industries Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2007). The court denied the executrix's motion to remand, holding that Buffalo Pumps' removal was timely and that Buffalo Pumps and General Electric satisfied federal officer removal requirements, so the case stays in federal court.
• Contreras v. Thor Norfolk Hotel, LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2003). The court granted the hotel owner Thor Norfolk Hotel's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ruling against plaintiff Contreras because he alleged no asbestos-related disease or physical injury.
• Convery v. AO Smith Water Products, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The trial court denied defendant Treadwell Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it, finding fact issues on exposure.
• Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2006). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's subrogation judgment for Conwed against Union Carbide in most respects, rejecting Union Carbide's collateral estoppel and damages challenges but correcting a double reduction and remanding to enter judgment of $23,878.36.
• Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2003). The district court denied Union Carbide's renewed motion for summary judgment on bulk supplier/sophisticated user grounds, leaving Conwed's subrogation claim against Union Carbide to proceed.
• Conwed Corporation v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2004). The court granted Conwed's motion (treated as one for summary judgment) and dismissed with prejudice Union Carbide's counterclaim for contribution to its Naig settlements with Conwed's former employees.
• Conwed v. Union Carbide Chem. and Plastics (Minnesota Supreme Court, 2001). Answering five questions certified by the federal district court, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Conwed may pursue subrogation only for identified employees with a compensable injury, including settled claims that may reopen, but not for employees without manifested disease or without a present duty to pay; it also held that Conwed may seek prejudgment interest from Union Carbide.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (Washington Supreme Court, 2021). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and reinstated in full the $81.5 million jury verdict for the Coogan family and estate against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA, affirming denial of a new trial, exclusion of the defense expert, and denial of CR 60 relief.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdict against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA but reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial on the estate's pain and suffering claim and on the consortium and loss of services claims.
• Cook v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 2013). The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment for Hunt Tool Company's insurers (One Beacon, USF&G, Standard Fire, Travelers) and against the Cook family plaintiffs.
• Cook v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2023). The court granted in part and denied in part Foster Wheeler's motion, ruling that maritime law governs the claims, that the bare-metal and government-contractor defenses are available if the trial evidence supports them, and that plaintiff Linda Cook may seek loss of consortium, punitive and survival damages.
• Cook v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2023). The court denied all pending cross motions for summary judgment by plaintiff Linda Cook and defendants Briggs & Stratton, Foster Wheeler and DCo LLC because significant facts remained in dispute.
• Cooper Industries, LLC v. Precision Castparts Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2016). The court granted Cooper Industries summary judgment that the stock purchase agreement unambiguously made Wyman-Gordon responsible for indemnifying and defending asbestos personal-injury claims from Katy Road employment, but denied both sides summary judgment on the $100,000 threshold, Precision's liability and collateral estoppel, leaving those for trial.
• Copeland v. Celotex Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1984). The appeals court reversed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the Copelands' third amended complaint against Celotex, held that it stated a cause of action, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Corcione v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Hoffman-New Yorker, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims against it, ruling against the plaintiff executor.
• Corin v. Arkema, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2024). The court granted Paula Corin's motion and remanded the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court because Colgate-Palmolive's notice of removal was fatally defective, and denied Colgate leave to amend as futile.
• Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2020). The Eleventh Circuit held it had jurisdiction over the appeal and affirmed the district court's denial of the Corleys' motion to reconsider summary judgment for the 17 Navy supplier defendants, who prevailed over the Corleys.
• Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2010). The magistrate judge denied the Corleys' motion to remand, holding that Garlock and Owens-Illinois properly removed on federal enclave grounds and CBS/Westinghouse on federal officer grounds, so the case stayed in federal court.
• Correll v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2006). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's rulings for DuPont on subrogation against the wrongful death recovery, the Social Security offset, the Medicare lien and attorneys' fees, and remanded for the trial court to allocate the portion of the recovery attributable to Mrs. Correll's loss of consortium claim and to hear proof of medical expenses.
• Correnti v. Bertram D. Stone, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Hollingsworth & Vose's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Correnti's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding the pleading adequate and triable issues on whether H&V was Lorillard's joint venturer.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike eleven defense expert witnesses, including Hopeman Brothers' witness Max Richard, because no expert reports were produced.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment dismissing the failure-to-warn claims, but denied it on the Halter Marine exposure and on whether its FRDM was a substantial factor in causing Cortez's mesothelioma.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment on claims about asbestos insulation used on its turbines and denied it on claims about asbestos gaskets it supplied or specified for those turbines.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Continental Insurance Company's summary judgment motion, holding the LHWCA preempted Cortez's state-law tort claims against it as Halter Marine's insurer and that his intentional-tort claims failed for lack of evidence, and dismissed Continental's two other summary-judgment motions as moot.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Lamorak's motion and stayed and administratively closed the whole case until September 12, 2021, over plaintiff Cortez's objection that he needed an expedited trial.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied Callen Cortez's motion to remand, holding that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls, Lamorak Insurance and Albert Bossier) timely and properly removed the case under the Federal Officer Removal Statute.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' omnibus motion in limine, barring terms like "asbestos industry" and the Bair memorandum, while allowing the "asbestos victim" label and lay testimony about dust.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Travelers Indemnity Company's unopposed motion to quash the plaintiffs' trial subpoena, ruling against the plaintiffs.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied plaintiffs' Daubert motion in limine to limit the testimony of Hopeman Brothers' toxicologist, Dr. Brent Finley, so Hopeman prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not recover pre-death lost income or pre-death expenses as wrongful death damages.