Asbestos Cases A–Z: F

126 decisions whose name begins with F.

• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The court granted Pfizer's motion to strike the report and testing of plaintiff's expert Sean Fitzgerald and denied plaintiff Ann Finch's motion for spoliation sanctions against Pfizer.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The district court denied Zurich's motion to intervene and its Rule 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(4) motions to set aside Ann Finch's judgment against Covil, and denied Finch's motion to supplement the record as moot; Finch won and Zurich lost.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2020). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ann Finch and her husband's estate against Covil Corporation, holding that the jury instruction on causation was proper and the $32.7 million compensatory award did not have to be reduced.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2019). The district court denied Covil Corporation's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and for remittitur, leaving in place the $32.7 million jury verdict for Ann Finch.
• Finello v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2023). The federal district court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so the Broderick estates' claims against it go forward.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (New York Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted Ford Motor Company's (Ford USA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiffs Finerty.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Ford USA's motion for summary judgment, but reversed the denial of Ford UK's motion and dismissed the complaint against Ford UK for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court found plaintiffs made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery, referred it to the Special Master, marked Ford Ireland's and Ford England's motions to dismiss off the calendar with leave to reinstate, and denied the motions to stay discovery as moot.
• Fischer v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The trial court granted defendant Nash Engineering Company's summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and all cross-claims against Nash, while the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Fischer v. American Biltrite, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2020). The First Department reversed the order granting Burnham's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, denied the motion so plaintiffs won, and dismissed the appeal from the denial of renewal as moot.
• Fischer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 1986). The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for James and Geneva Fischer, upholding the $240,000 punitive damages award against the Johns-Manville defendants.
• Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs to submit narrowed topics, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply.
• Fishbain v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2019). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury verdict and final judgment for Shulton, Procter & Gamble, Wyeth and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels against plaintiff David Fishbain, and dismissed the defendants' cross-appeals as moot.
• Fisher v. Alliance Machine Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2011). The court affirmed summary judgment for Clark Industrial Insulation, reversed summary judgment for Arthur Louis Supply, and remanded the estate's claim against A. Louis for further proceedings.
• Fisher v. American International Industries (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2024). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of American International Industries' motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and JNOV, but vacated the judgment that gave it one-half of the verdict and remanded for judgment divided per capita among it, Whittaker Clark and Daniels, and Colgate-Palmolive.
• Fisher v. Beazer East, Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2013). The court affirmed the denial of Ferro's motions for directed verdict and JNOV, so the estate kept its verdict against Ferro, and it also affirmed the jury's apportionment of fault to Bohazi's former employers, rejecting the estate's cross-appeal.
• Fisher v. BNSF Railway Company (Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 2022). The court affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway, holding that Alan Fisher's 2006 release barred his widow June's FELA suit over his asbestos-related lung cancer.
• Fisher v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1989). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, treated as summary judgment, holding that Fisher's 1986 mesothelioma suit was barred by his earlier release, so the asbestos defendants won and the Fishers lost.
• Fisher v. Sexauer (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for J.A. Sexauer, Kentile and Pecora Corporation, ruling against Beverly Fisher because the evidence did not show enough exposure to each defendant's product.
• Fisk v. Wcab (general Elec.) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1993). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, which had required benefits to be calculated on the decedent's 1980 wage (date of last exposure) and had reversed the referee's 20% penalty against General Electric; the claimant widow lost on both issues.
• Fitzwater v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court granted APV North America, Inc.'s (as successor to Baker Perkins) motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction in New York, severing and continuing the action against the remaining defendants.
• Flanders v. California Coastal Communities (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2005). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of California Coastal Communities' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded, because the trial court never found that California Coastal was M.W. Kellogg's successor; the plaintiff's estate lost this round.
• Flatt v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1980). The court granted plaintiffs' partial summary judgment against Johns Manville and, in part, against Certain-Teed, holding that asbestos products are defective and unreasonably dangerous and barring relitigation of that issue, but denied it on whether Certain-Teed made or sold asbestos products.
• Fleischman v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2007). The court granted CSX Transportation summary judgment against Pauline Fleischman, holding that the 1986 release barred the claims and that FELA's three-year limitations period barred the personal injury claim, and dismissed all claims.
• Fleming v. Advance Auto Parts, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted Dana Companies' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims against Dana; the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Fletcher v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2017). The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after a bench trial that James Fletcher was Exxon's statutory employee, which favored Exxon over Fletcher; Chief Judge McKay dissented.
• Fletcher v. Water Applications Distribution (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Water Applications and for CertainTeed on the manufacturing-defect and general negligence claims, but reversed summary judgment for CertainTeed on Fletcher's design defect and failure-to-warn claims.
• Flintkote Co. v. Aviva Plc (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2016). The court granted Aviva's motion for partial summary judgment, holding Aviva owes Flintkote only the trust payment percentage rather than the full liquidated value of claims, denied Flintkote's motion for a declaration, and granted Flintkote's motion for a bond.
• Flintkote Company v. Aviva Plc (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2016). The court granted Aviva's motion for partial summary judgment (California law applies and Aviva owes only the trust payment percentage), denied Flintkote's motion for a declaration that Aviva must pay full liquidated value, and granted Flintkote's motion for a bond under Cal. Ins. Code § 1616.
• Flomenhoft v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2013). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Linda Flomenhoft's loss of consortium claim, because she was not married to Mark Flomenhoft when he was exposed to asbestos.
• Flores v. Kmart Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order sustaining Kmart's demurrer without leave to amend, because Kmart's limited record did not show the bankruptcy discharge could constitutionally be applied to the Flores family; the family won the appeal.
• Flowers v. Union Carbide Corp. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2005). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide, rejecting the Flowers family's claims of error on excluded evidence, the handling of the Georgia-Pacific stipulation, and the denial of a new trial.
• Floyd v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2017). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for AstenJohnson, Inc., holding the executor of James Floyd Sr.'s estate failed to produce enough evidence that Floyd inhaled asbestos from AstenJohnson's dryer felts.
• Flynn v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The court denied the ship owners' (American President Lines and Farrell Lines) summary judgment motion on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, and granted it on the other causes of action, which plaintiffs did not oppose.
• Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Moore Dry Dock against the Foglia plaintiffs, finding no admissible evidence that the decedent's father was exposed to asbestos at the shipyard, and awarded the company its appeal costs.
• Folta v. Ferro Engineering (Illinois Supreme Court, 2015). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, so Ferro Engineering won and Ellen Folta's wrongful death action against it was barred.
• Folta v. Ferro Engineering (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 2014). The appellate court reversed the trial court's section 2-619 dismissal of Ellen Folta's claims against Ferro Engineering and remanded, holding the workers' compensation exclusivity bar did not apply.
• Font v. Union Carbide Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2016). On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Third District reversed the judgment for Union Carbide after a jury verdict and remanded Count II (strict liability) for a new trial, because the trial court refused Font's requested consumer expectations instruction.
• Fontes v. Interstate Brands Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Interstate Brands Corporation and the denial of the Fonteses' new trial motion, with costs on appeal awarded to IBC.
• Force v. Director, Owcp, Dept. of Labor (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1991). The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Benefits Review Board's order, holding Kaiser may offset all types of third-party damages but must prove what part of the family settlement belongs to the claimant, and remanded to the ALJ for retrial on apportionment.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (Virginia Supreme Court, 2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient-causes standard.
• Ford Motor Company v. Miller (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2008). The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $10,000,000 jury verdict and rendered judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller and that John Roland had no compensable injury or damages evidence.
• Ford Motor Company v. Sheets (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's one-sentence order denying Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion and remanded for the trial court to state the basis for its ruling, leaving Ford's up-the-ladder immunity claim undecided.
• Ford Motor v. Wood (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1998). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment for Mrs. Wood against Ford Motor Company for insufficient proof that her husband was exposed to Ford's brake and clutch products, and affirmed the judgment for the Grewe plaintiffs.
• Ford v. AO Smith Water Products (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2019). The First Department modified the judgment against Burnham LLC, vacating the $2 million future pain and suffering award and ordering a new trial on those damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce it to $500,000, and otherwise affirmed the verdict for plaintiff.
• Foreman v. AO Smith Corp. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 4th Division, 2015). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Lawrence Foreman against Sid Harvey Industries, rejecting all four of Sid Harvey's challenges to the verdict and the judgment reduction.
• Fossen v. Midamerican Energy Company (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2008). The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for MidAmerican Energy and Interstate Power and Light, holding they owed no duty of care to Ann Van Fossen, so Roger Van Fossen lost.
• Foster Wheeler LLC v. Superior Court OF San Francisco County (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal granted Foster Wheeler's petition and directed the trial court to vacate its order consolidating the Gray and Oxford asbestos cases for trial, finding an abuse of discretion.
• Foushee v. RT Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company and Vanderbilt Minerals, holding the plaintiff did not show enough exposure to survive summary judgment.
• Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2022). The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstated the jury's verdict and $2,380,000 award for the Edenfield estate against Union Carbide, and remanded for any remaining issues.