Asbestos Cases A–Z: E

68 decisions whose name begins with E.

• Eagle-Picher Ind. v. American Employers'ins. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1989). After a first-phase bench trial, the court held that American Employers' Insurance failed to show that claim-by-claim review was feasible, so Eagle-Picher won a six-year presumptive rollback for asbestosis and pleural claims.
• Eagle-Picher Industries v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1987). The First Circuit affirmed the district court's six-year rollback for asbestosis but made it a rebuttable presumption, and it required separate methods for other diseases. It vacated the certification clause and affirmed the denial of bad faith damages. It held that Eagle-Picher is owed interest from finality and remanded for further proceedings.
• Eagle-Picher Industries v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1981). After trial, the court ruled for Eagle-Picher and Liberty Mutual and the Bird Defendants, adopting the manifestation theory, so coverage is triggered by the date of diagnosis (or death if no earlier diagnosis), and rejected the exposure theory urged by American Motorists and the Froude Defendants.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1992). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the compensatory judgments for the Balbos and Knuckles plaintiffs against Eagle-Picher and the other defendants, except that it reversed the Knuckles judgment against Porter Hayden for lack of proof, and it ordered a new trial on punitive damages against Owens-Illinois and Eagle-Picher.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1990). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the punitive damages awards for the Knuckles estate against Eagle-Picher and Owens-Illinois and affirmed all other judgments for the plaintiffs against the manufacturer and installer defendants.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1985). The appeals court affirmed the money judgment for plaintiff Milton Cox against Eagle-Picher Industries, rejecting Eagle-Picher's challenge to the admission of cancer-risk evidence and its other claimed errors.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1982). The First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the manifestation theory governs which insurance policies cover Eagle-Picher's asbestos claims, but modified the judgment so the trigger date is when the disease became reasonably capable of medical diagnosis, not the date of actual diagnosis.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. US (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1988). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the United States' motion to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment for the United States, so asbestos manufacturer Eagle-Picher could not recover contribution or indemnity from the government.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. US (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1987). The court denied the United States' motion to dismiss Eagle-Picher's Federal Tort Claims Act contribution claim, and granted the United States' alternative request to certify the legal question to the Third Circuit for interlocutory appeal.
• Eckenrod v. GAF Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1988). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for A-Best, Porter, Raymark, Owens-Corning and Garlock, because the widow and co-defendant Pittsburgh Gage did not show the decedent was exposed to those defendants' asbestos products.
• Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Delaware Supreme Court, 2012). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to Greyhound Lines, Inc. against Virginia Edmisten, finding no sufficient evidence that Greyhound supplied asbestos-containing brakes or clutches.
• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the Daubert motions of defendants Atwood (Valves and Controls US) and Warren Pumps, excluding Dr. Zhang's first cumulative-exposure causation opinion and his asbestosis opinion but allowing his second causation opinion and his pleural plaque opinion.
• Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling for Edwards (the estate of Stewart) against Scapa Waycross on causation, and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted on additur and reallocation of settlement proceeds.
• Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2022). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the judgment for Stewart's estate against Scapa, upholding the denial of JNOV, the additur increasing survival damages to $1 million, the refusal to reallocate settlement proceeds, and the exclusion of Stewart's bankruptcy trust claims.
• Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1996). The appeals court affirmed the bench-trial judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglass (OCF), including the $350,000 general damages award and the set-off ruling, and rejected the plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Ohio law.
• Ehlers v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2024). The court affirmed the denial of LIGA's summary judgment motion and, in part, the grant of summary judgment for SSA Gulf, and converted the appeal of the denial of LIGA's subject matter jurisdiction exception to a writ application, which it granted but denied relief.
• Ehlert v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Brand Insulations, upholding dismissal of the widows' strict liability claims, the general negligence instruction and exclusion of the newspaper articles, and did not reach Brand's cross appeal.
• Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2001). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order that Congoleum pay postjudgment interest from the original June 27, 1997 judgment, so the plaintiffs (the Ehret heirs) won and Congoleum lost.
• Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's JNOV and its 75 percent settlement allocation, and remanded for entry of judgment of $817,896 against Congoleum, so Congoleum largely prevailed over Ehret's heirs.
• EL Paso Energy Est Company v. Chevron USA Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2022). The court granted El Paso's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Chevron must defend and indemnify El Paso for the Louisiana asbestos death lawsuit under the stock purchase agreement; Chevron's cross-motion had been denied earlier.
• Ellis v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2018). The court transferred nonparty Bernard Lesneski's motion to quash a deposition and document subpoena to the Middle District of North Carolina, the issuing court, and denied Plaintiff Ellis's motion to strike Lesneski's late reply.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2023). The federal district court denied summary judgment motions by General Electric, ViacomCBS, Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps, and granted the Elorreaga family's motion for partial summary judgment that the government contractor defense does not apply.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2023). The federal district court denied the defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts Staggs, Spear, Smith and Horn, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2022). The court granted General Electric and ViacomCBS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium damages under general maritime law, but denied it as to the California negligence and strict liability claims.
• Elorreaga v. Viacomcbs Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2024). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's partial summary judgment for the Elorreaga plaintiffs and its denial of summary judgment to ViacomCBS, Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps, and remanded for the district court to consider the Yearsley government contractor defense.
• Ely v. Dearborn Heights School District NO. 7 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2015). The court dismissed the claims against the Dearborn Heights School District for lack of a policy or custom, but denied summary judgment to the individual defendants Bartold and Thieken (including on qualified immunity) and denied the plaintiff's own motion, leaving her First Amendment claims for trial.
• Emery v. Owens-Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2001). The court affirmed the jury-based judgment against premises owner Exxon ($195,000 to Wayne Bendily and $18,750 to Mary Bendily), reversed the jury's liability findings against three manufacturers, and modified the judgment to delete the comparative-fault language as surplusage.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Shulton's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Linda English et al. defeated the motion by Shulton's successor, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied defendant Shulton, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff Linda English's claims against Shulton go forward.
• English v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, 1984). The court ruled that Dr. Kleinerman, whom both sides had contacted as an expert, could be used at trial by any party and that his testimony was subject to discovery by all parties, rejecting the defendants' claim to exclusive use.
• Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. New York City (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1988). The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New York City on the training and certification program, except that it held two worker-safety training requirements (medical surveillance and respiratory protection) preempted by the OSH Act, severed them, and so partly reversed for the abatement contractors.
• Erhardt v. Bmw OF North America, LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2021). The district court denied BMW of North America's motions to preclude the plaintiff's three expert witnesses and denied its motion for summary judgment, so Mr. Erhardt's claims go forward against BMW NA.
• Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2015). The court granted class certification for Erica P. John Fund's securities fraud class only as to the December 7, 2001 corrective disclosure and denied it as to the other five disclosures, finding Halliburton rebutted the price-impact presumption for those five.
• Erickson v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied the motions of CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) and General Electric for summary judgment based on Montana's statute of repose, so the plaintiffs' claims against both defendants continue.
• Esposito v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court denied defendant William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against Powell remain.
• Estate of Anderson v. American Seaboard Exteriors (Delaware Superior Court, 2022). The Superior Court affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's denial of the Estate's workers' compensation claim against American Seaboard Exteriors, finding substantial evidence that Mr. Anderson was not injuriously exposed to asbestos at work and that the one evidentiary error was harmless.
• Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2014). The en banc Ninth Circuit vacated the jury judgment for the Barabins against AstenJohnson and Scapa and remanded for a new trial, because the district court admitted expert testimony without making the required relevance and reliability findings.
• Estate OF Blandford v. AO Smith Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2016). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for supplier Edward R. Hart Company on the strict liability (substituted liability) claims, but reversed it on the negligent failure to warn claim and remanded, a partial win for the Blandford estate and Donna Blandford.
• Estate OF Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Barbara Brandes's estate against Brand Insulations and reversed the trial court's remittitur, ordering the full $3,500,000 verdict reinstated.
• Estate OF Brust v. Acf Industries, LLC (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2015). The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for the railroad defendants (PATCO, DRPA, Railroad Friction Products, Pneumo-Abex) on federal preemption and for the automotive defendants (Honeywell, Abex, Pep Boys) on insufficient exposure, against the Brust plaintiffs.
• Estate OF Frederick v. General Dynamics Corp. (Connecticut Supreme Court, 1997). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and remanded so benefits would be awarded to the decedent's estate and dependent widow, ruling against Electric Boat/General Dynamics and its insurer.
• Estate OF Gregovich v. Auer Steel & Heating Supply (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2014). The court reversed summary judgment for fourteen defendants (including Cleaver-Brooks, Honeywell, GE and Crane) and remanded for the circuit court to consider Gregovich's materials, but affirmed summary judgment for Rockwell Automation and Lennox Industries.
• Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2009). The en banc Superior Court affirmed the judgment for the Estate of Louis Hicks against Dana Companies and John Crane, rejecting both defendants' challenges to the verdict, the evidence rulings, the jury instructions and the reverse-bifurcated trial.
• Estate of Orecny v. Ford Motor Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 1996). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order granting Ford Motor Company's Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the settlement, held that the settlement did not abate on the widow's death, and remanded, so the widow's estate prevailed.
• Estate of Patrick v. BD. OF Sup'rs OF Univ. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2002). The appeals court granted LSU's writ application but affirmed the trial court's order quashing LSU's subpoena for the deceased plaintiff's tissue samples and slides, ruling for the plaintiffs, and struck LSU's new SV40 test argument raised in its reply brief.
• Estate OF Patrick v. Bd. of Supervisors (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2002). The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the Board of Supervisors of LSU's writ, vacated the lower courts' denial of its motion for further testing of Dr. Patrick's preserved tissue, and remanded to the trial court.
• Estate OF Rock v. University of Connecticut (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2016). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part the Compensation Review Board's decision, holding the decedent's estate had no standing to pursue any workers' compensation benefits, and remanded with direction to dismiss the estate's claims, so the University of Connecticut prevailed.
• Estate of Schatz v. John Crane, Inc. (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of judgment to John Crane, Inc. against the estate and daughters of Concetta Schatz, holding JCI owed Mrs. Schatz no duty to warn.
• Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum Motor., Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1995). The Court of Appeals reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's order upholding the employers' denial of the mesothelioma claim and remanded for reconsideration, a win for the claimant's estate over Spectrum Motorwerks and SAIF.
• Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of about $4.5 million entered on the jury verdict for the Estate of Edwin Estenson against Caterpillar, upholding denial of summary judgment, a new trial, and vacatur of the verdict.