Asbestos Cases A–Z: C

317 decisions whose name begins with C.

• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Certain London Market Insurers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims arising from Avondale exposures after January 21, 1970, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in limine, excluding most of Westinghouse's expert Dr. Forman's testimony on insulation and general Navy requirements but allowing his testimony on shipyard asbestos-safety requirements relevant to the sophisticated-purchaser defense.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Riley Power, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the statute of repose and exposure-sufficiency grounds, and denied its motion to strike as moot, so plaintiffs (the Cortez family) prevailed over Riley at this stage.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Hopeman Brothers partial summary judgment that it was not a manufacturer of the asbestos wallboards, but denied summary judgment on whether it was a professional vendor, so that question goes to trial against the Cortez plaintiffs and Avondale's opposition.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiffs' industrial hygienist Gerald Baril, so the plaintiffs' expert may testify.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted third-party defendant Liberty Mutual's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Wayne Manufacturing was not a professional vendor of asbestos-containing wallboards, against third-party plaintiff Avondale; plaintiffs were found to lack standing to oppose.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims and their claims that Wayne Manufacturing was Hopeman's alter ego or part of a single business enterprise.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Travelers' summary judgment motion only on whether B&B was a professional vendor of asbestos (and so on strict products liability) and denied it on negligence duty and breach and on Article 2317 liability, so plaintiffs' other claims continued.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Goodrich's motion for summary judgment (joined by several co-defendants) on Callen Cortez's claim for loss of personal household services, so plaintiffs kept that claim.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted partial summary judgment for Westinghouse (ViacomCBS), General Electric and Foster Wheeler, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional-tort and fraud claims, and dismissed the punitive-damages part of the motion as moot.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied as premature the motion in limine by Foster Wheeler, GE and Westinghouse to exclude plaintiffs' two medical causation experts as cumulative, leaving defendants free to object at trial.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted in part the motion by Eagle and LIGA to limit plaintiffs' industrial hygienist Gerard Baril, barring him from testifying that a supplier who puts its name on an insulation box should legally be considered its manufacturer, and denied the motion otherwise.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to exclude Danny Joyce's hearsay testimony about Walsh-Healey inspectors, but denied it as to Avondale's expert relying on that testimony, so long as Avondale does not disclose the hearsay to the jury.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Trinity's summary judgment motion and the motions to dismiss by Continental, Liberty Mutual and Travelers, dismissing with prejudice Albert Bossier's third-party claims because no substitution was made within 90 days after notice of his death.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted insurer USF&G's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Callen Cortez's punitive-damages claims against it.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied as moot plaintiff Cortez's motion for review of the Magistrate Judge's order allowing Eagle, Inc. to file a supplemental answer, because Eagle's later answer to the third amended complaint made the earlier order irrelevant.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to Entergy, First State, USF&G, Berkshire and Insulations, LLC, granted GE's motion in part (insulation claims) and denied it in part (asbestos gasket claims), and denied Foster Wheeler's motion; it also granted LIGA's motion in limine excluding hearsay.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted plaintiff Callen Cortez's motion for summary judgment that he has mesothelioma and that asbestos caused it, over the defendants' oppositions, while leaving specific causation issues for the jury.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Avondale's summary judgment motion in part, dismissing Cortez's tort claims against Avondale as his employer and his intentional-tort claim, but denied it as to his take-home exposure claims against Avondale as his brother's employer.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Callen Cortez's claims arising from the Gabler Insulations insurance coverage go forward.
• Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit for the friction-product defendants (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen of America and Pneumo Abex), holding that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations barred the Cossmans' claims, including Max Cossman's loss of consortium claim.
• Costa v. Dresser Industries, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District, 1994). The appellate court affirmed the judgment for defendants A.P. Green, Sprinkmann Sons, E.D. Bullard, Dresser Industries, Magid Manufacturing and Fibreboard, rejecting the widow's claims of trial error and her sanctions request.
• Costello v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court, 1986). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' dismissal of the strict liability counts against H.K. Porter and remanded, holding Marion Costello's suit was timely under section 13-213.
• Costello v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1984). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Marion Costello's strict liability counts as barred by the statute of repose and of her negligence counts as insufficiently pleaded, so the defendants, including H.K. Porter Company, won.
• Coulbourn v. Crane Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2018). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and the denial of judgment as a matter of law, leaving Crane Co. liable for $1.8 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages to the Coulbourn plaintiffs.
• Courville v. Lamorak Insurance Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2020). The appeals court reversed summary judgments for Liberty Mutual and Wausau, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue, and affirmed summary judgment for Zurich, so the plaintiffs lost their claims against it.
• Courville v. Lamorak Insurance Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court granted the plaintiffs' writ application and reversed the trial court's summary judgment that had dismissed the claims against Liberty Mutual, ruling that the 2013 settlement with Reilly-Benton could not be enforced against the tort victims.
• Coury v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 2018). The district court denied the estate's second motion to remand and its motion for sanctions, keeping the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute for General Electric and CBS.
• Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2012). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding that Lorillard failed to show the California defendant Metalclad was fraudulently joined, and denied the plaintiffs' request for fees, costs and sanctions.
• Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, the court of appeals' decision upholding summary judgment for Covil Corporation (through its receiver) against Penn National, which had to indemnify Covil for the Rollins asbestos settlement.
• Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2022). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed partial summary judgment for Covil (through its receiver), holding that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company had to indemnify Covil for the Rollins asbestos settlement.
• Covil Corporation v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted in part the insurer USF&G's motion to compel, requiring Covil to disclose the amount of its Zurich settlement and any allocation provisions tied to the Finch action, and denied the motion as to the TIG, Hartford and Sentry settlements.
• Covington v. WR Grace-Conn., Inc. (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1998). The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for W.R. Grace and remanded, because a fact question remained on whether the Zonolite product was an improvement to real property under the statute of repose.
• Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1999). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Owens-Corning's motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' verdicts and the judgment entered for them in place.
• Cowley v. Acands, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court granted summary judgment to defendant MCIC, Inc. against plaintiff Andrew Cowley, ruling his earlier deposition inadmissible and finding no admissible evidence that he worked near MCIC's asbestos work.
• Craft v. Crowley Marine Services, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2024). The court of appeal granted Crowley Marine Services' writ application and vacated the trial court's judgment that had sustained Climmie Craft's res judicata exception, granted partial summary judgment and struck Crowley's defenses.
• Craft v. Eagle, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2024). The Louisiana Fourth Circuit granted Climmie Craft's writ application, reversed the trial court's rulings limiting her industrial hygiene expert Kenneth Garza to general opinions, and remanded, ruling against the defendants (Ports America Gulfport, Crowley Marine Services and their insurers).
• Craft v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed the $1,600,000 general damages award and the denial of JNOV on negligence against Crowley Marine Services and James J. Flanagan Shipping, but reversed the JNOV that had struck the jury's $1,000,000 future medical expenses award and reinstated that award for Craft.
• Craig v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2023). The district court denied Gloria Craig's motion to remand, ruling that Westinghouse's and GE's federal-officer removal was timely, so the case stays in federal court.
• Crane Co. v. DeLisle (Florida District Court of Appeal, 4th District, 2016). The appeals court reversed the $8 million verdict, directing entry of a directed verdict for Crane Co. and ordering a new trial on all issues, including damages, for R.J. Reynolds (as successor to Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose), because expert causation testimony was wrongly admitted.
• Crane v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied National Grid Generation, LLC's (sued as LILCO) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Paul and Arlene Crane's claims against it continue.
• Crane v. Crane Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). On reargument, the court granted LILCO's summary judgment motion only as to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, which was dismissed as unopposed, and otherwise denied it, so the Labor Law § 200 and common law claims by the Cranes against LILCO continue.
• Crane v. Linkus (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2010). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mr. Linkus (and his estate) against John Crane, Inc., rejecting Crane's challenges to causation, the size of the verdict, and the denial of credits for bankrupt entities' payments.
• Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2002). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and the Circuit Court judgments for the Scribners against John Crane and Garlock, holding the non-economic damages cap did not apply to the survival action.
• Crawford v. Artuz (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001). The district court granted summary judgment to the Green Haven prison officials and dismissed the inmates Crawford and McEachern's Eighth and First Amendment claims with prejudice.
• Creech v. Agco Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2006). Affirmed summary judgment for Oakfabco and against Roberta Creech, holding that Oakfabco's predecessor did not assume liability for Mr. Creech's claim and that Oakfabco was not collaterally estopped from denying liability.
• Crepeau BY Crepeau v. Krost Insulation Co. (Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983). The court affirmed the workers' compensation award against Krost and its 1978 carrier Minnesota Mutual, but reversed the Court of Appeals' increase in dependency benefits and reinstated the compensation judge's lower dependency award for the widow.
• Cretan v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1993). The Ninth Circuit held that the widow and daughter were subject to sections 33(f) and 33(g) of the LHWCA, which together barred recovery from Bethlehem Steel; it affirmed the Board's full set-off for Bethlehem, reversed its holding that 33(g) did not apply, and remanded.
• Crews v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, 2014). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability and failure-to-warn claims by Dwight and Peggy Crews, because Mr. Crews could not show exposure to asbestos in Crane Co.'s products.
• Crooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2001). The court of appeal reversed the summary judgments for the defendants, holding that the 1999 amendment to Article 2315 could not be applied retroactively to defeat the plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, and remanded for further proceedings.