Asbestos Cases A–Z: F

126 decisions whose name begins with F.

• Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2012). The court granted summary judgment to pump, valve and turbine makers Warren Pumps, Crane and Westinghouse (CBS) and against plaintiff Ruth Faddish, holding they had no duty to warn about asbestos in other companies' insulation, gaskets and packing.
• Faddish v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled CBS Corporation's objections and denied its summary judgment motion on product identification, denied it without prejudice on the bare metal defense (leaving that to the transferor court), and denied it on the sophisticated purchaser defense, so Ruth Faddish's claim continues.
• Faddish v. General Electric Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court adopted the magistrate panel's finding that a genuine factual dispute existed on product identification, but granted General Electric summary judgment on the government contractor defense, so the plaintiff lost her failure-to-warn claim against GE.
• Faddish v. Warren Pumps, LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled Warren Pumps' objections, adopted the magistrate panel's recommendation, and denied Warren's summary judgment motion on causation, while also adopting the unobjected finding that Warren is not Quimby Pump Company's successor-in-interest.
• Fagerholm v. Gen. Elec. Co., Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2009). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's protective order limiting discovery and its summary judgment for General Electric, rejecting Beverly Fagerholm's employer intentional tort claim.
• Fagiola v. National Gypsum Co. AC & S., Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1990). The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for defendants Owens-Corning and Eagle-Picher, holding the district court did not err in admitting the summary witness's testimony and summary of sales documents.
• Fagot v. Dow Chemical Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2018). The appeals court affirmed partial summary judgment for Honeywell, holding that Turner must defend and indemnify it, affirmed denial of Turner's own summary judgment motion, and denied Turner's writ application.
• Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied summary judgment to DAP (without prejudice to renewal on proper papers), Hennessy Industries and American Biltrite, so the plaintiffs' claims against all three go forward.
• Falcone v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Texas Automatic Power's motion for summary judgment as premature, siding with cross-claimant Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) because fact questions and the need for further discovery remained.
• Falcone v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted insurer Lamorak's (joined by Avondale's) motion to stay, staying and administratively closing the whole case because Lamorak was in liquidation, and set a status conference for September 28, 2021.
• Falgoust v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2010). The appeals court reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had granted to Hopeman Brothers and the Falgousts on Northrop Grumman's indemnity cross-claim, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the authenticity of the contract documents; Northrop Grumman prevailed on appeal.
• Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court against defendant Avondale (Huntington Ingalls).
• Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to third-party defendants Foster Wheeler, GE and Amchem and dismissed Avondale's cross-claims against them.
• Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Avondale, ruling that Avondale could not use the Boyle or Yearsley government contractor defenses, and denied as moot the motion against Hopeman, which had settled.
• Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The district court denied the plaintiff's motions to remand, so the case against Avondale and Hopeman Brothers stays in federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Falise v. American Tobacco Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2000). The court granted the tobacco defendants summary judgment on the Trust's RICO settlement, litigation and investment claims and related conspiracy claims, but denied it on the RICO direct payment claim and the New York fraud claim, and denied dismissal on preemption.
• Falk v. Keene Corp. (Washington Supreme Court, 1989). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the defense verdict for Keene Corporation and other manufacturers, holding that the instructions allowed the jury to apply ordinary negligence to the design defect claim, and remanded for retrial in favor of the Falk plaintiffs.
• Falk v. Keene Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1989). The Court of Appeals reversed the defense verdict for Keene Corp., Raymark, Eagle Picher and the other manufacturers because the design defect instruction used a negligence standard, and remanded for a new trial.
• Families for Asbestos Compliance Testing and Safety v. City of St. Louis (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2009). After a bench trial, the court dismissed the citizen group FACTS's Clean Air Act claim against the City of St. Louis for lack of standing, so the City prevailed and no penalties or injunction were ordered.
• Fankhauser v. Honeywell International, Inc. (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2022). The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment for Honeywell and Abex and remanded, so the Fankhausers' claims over Paul's mesothelioma can go forward.
• Fankhauser v. Honeywell International, Inc. (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2022). The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment for Honeywell and Pneumo Abex, ruling for the Fankhausers, because the district court misread Iowa Code section 686B.7(5).
• Farag v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's postjudgment order denying the Farags' motion to tax ArvinMeritor's expert witness costs, holding the joint section 998 offer to the couple was valid.
• Farmer v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, 2018). The court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls and Honeywell because the plaintiff did not show Mr. Farmer was exposed to asbestos from their products, and denied McWane's motion because it could be liable as a successor under a post-sale failure-to-warn theory.
• Farrall v. AC & S. Co., Inc. (Delaware Superior Court, 1990). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' and Celotex's motions to alter the judgments, ruling that Celotex's liability is the verdict minus the greater of the total settlement payments or the released tortfeasors' combined fault share, so Celotex owed one plaintiff $323,750 on an $875,000 verdict.
• Farris v. Avon Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2024). The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the executor's motion and approve the $600,000 wrongful death settlement with Johnson & Johnson, LTL Management, the Pfizer Protected Parties and Bristol-Myers Squibb, plus $199,999.99 in attorney's fees and $39,758.58 in expenses.
• Farrow v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's exclusion of Wortman's deposition testimony and its summary judgment for Flowserve, ruling for the Farrows and remanding for further proceedings.
• Faulkner Const. v. Silicosis Fund (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission's ruling that the Silicosis, Dust Disease, and Logging Industry Compensation Fund was not liable, because employer Faulkner Construction and its insurer Wausau had not shown that peritoneal mesothelioma threatened its industry.
• Faulkner v. McCarty Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the bench-trial judgment for the Dock Board, holding it owed no legal duty to the longshoreman and was not strictly liable, so the Faulkner plaintiffs lost.
• Fautheree v. McCaffrey (Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, 3rd Division, 2005). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the law firm and lawyers (McCaffrey, Thompson, McCaffrey & Gibson) against widow Patsy Fautheree's legal malpractice claim, because her workers' compensation claim would have been time-barred anyway.
• Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 1981). The court denied the joint motion for summary judgment by Johns-Manville and the other asbestos defendants, holding the widow's claims were neither time-barred nor barred by the workers' compensation settlement.
• Feaster v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2015). The court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Samuel Feaster, finding no evidence he was exposed to an asbestos-containing product made or supplied by GE.
• Feaster v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois, Brand Insulations and Durametallic, and against plaintiff Feaster, because he did not identify any of them as a source of his asbestos exposure.
• Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1998). The Third Circuit dismissed Westinghouse's (CBS's) appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, leaving in place the district court's order remanding the Feidts' suit to New Jersey state court.
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion to dismiss Arlene Feinberg's failure-to-warn claim, rejecting its federal preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Feinstein v. Armstrong Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Ingersoll Rand Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against Ingersoll continue.
• Felix v. Novelis Corp. (Utah Court of Appeals, 2019). The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of Novelis Corporation's motion to dismiss, holding the Estate failed to show sufficient minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction in Utah.
• Felix v. Novelis Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2021). The federal district court granted Novelis Corporation's motion for summary judgment because Michele Felix's claims were time barred under Texas law, and overruled Novelis's evidentiary objections.
• Fenicle v. Boise Cascade Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2015). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the case to Alameda County Superior Court, holding removal under § 1441 was improper and that equitable grounds under § 1452(b) favored remand, against Boise Cascade and OfficeMax.
• Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2012). The appellate court affirmed the St. Clair County trial court's denial of Illinois Central Railroad's forum non conveniens motion to dismiss in favor of a Mississippi forum, so plaintiff Walter Fennell's FELA suit stays in Illinois.
• Fenton v. Fibreboard Corp. (Colorado Court of Appeals, 5th Division, 1991). The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the $190,000 jury verdict for the plaintiff widow against Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois and the partial set-off ruling, but reversed the costs award and remanded for findings on costs.
• Fernandez v. Union Carbide Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2006). The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide Corporation, rejecting the plaintiff's challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• Ferris v. Gatke Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Gatke Corporation, holding the trial court properly barred plaintiffs' market share (Sindell) theory and properly granted nonsuit on the civil conspiracy claims.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton (Colorado Supreme Court, 1993). The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the set-off ruling (only collected settlement sums count) but reversed the directed verdict on failure to warn, holding state-of-the-art evidence admissible, and sent the case back for a new trial, partly favoring Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois and partly Fenton.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool (Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District, 1991). The court affirmed the Williams judgment and, in the Pool/Strong/Sledge/Freeman case, affirmed in favor of the plaintiffs except that it set aside the $100,000 future medical award to Pool (new trial unless he remits) and the punitive damages against Garlock.
• Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. US (U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2015). Affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; the general liability insurer USF&G lost its Tucker Act suit against the United States seeking indemnity for its settlement and legal costs.
• Fiffie v. Taylor-Seidenbach (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Monique Mohammed's motion and remanded the case to Orleans Parish Civil District Court over the opposition of defendant IMTT-Geismar.
• Filipek v. the Boeing Company (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to Boeing, Navistar, Borg-Warner Morse Tec, CBS, McNeil, Northern States Power and United Technologies because the Filipeks' claims were time-barred, denied the Filipeks' motion to withdraw an admission, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
• Finazzo v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The trial court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Finazzo's claims and all cross-claims against it, while the action continued against the other defendants.
• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The court granted summary judgment to defendant McNeil & NRM, Inc. (MNRM) against plaintiff Ann Finch, and also granted MNRM's motion to strike late deposition answers to the extent they went beyond authenticating documents.
• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The court granted in part and denied in part Covil's summary judgment motion: the plaintiff's negligence and failure to warn claims over Firestone plant exposure go forward, while the other claims were dismissed, and Covil's motion to strike was denied.