Asbestos Cases A–Z: H

245 decisions whose name begins with H.

• Hegger v. Valley Farm Dairy Company (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals reversed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of enhanced mesothelioma benefits to Hegger's children and remanded to determine which insurer covered Hegger's last exposure, with one judge dissenting.
• Heizer v. New Orleans and Pacific Railway Co. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2004). Affirmed summary judgment for the railroads on the FELA survival action as time-barred, but reversed dismissal of the children's wrongful death claim and remanded to reinstate it.
• Held v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1996). The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Held family's claims against Avondale Industries and remanded for further proceedings, so the plaintiffs prevailed on appeal.
• Held v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), the respondent engineer, and rejected the plaintiff's claims against it.
• Hellam v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal vacated the amended judgment against Crane Co. and remanded for recalculation of the setoff for the Rheem settlement, which it held was a postverdict settlement; it otherwise rejected Crane's challenges to the settlement credits.
• Hellam v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Hellam against Crane Co., affirmed the denial of Crane's JNOV and motion to vacate, and affirmed the costs award except for remanding whether costs for pretrial transcripts should be taxed.
• Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2007). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the respondent manufacturers, finding the Hendersons failed to prove actionable asbestos exposure in South Carolina, and affirmed the exclusion of cumulative evidence on other asbestos diseases.
• Henderson v. MeadWESTVACO Corporation (Alabama Supreme Court, 2009). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for CSX Transportation and MeadWestvaco against Sheila Henderson's wrongful-death claim, on a different ground than the trial court's: the decedent's own claim would have been time-barred under Alabama law.
• Hendricks v. Armstrong International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2015). The court granted the Hendricks plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding General Electric failed to show SoCal Edison was fraudulently joined and did not obtain consent of all remaining defendants to removal; GE lost.
• Hendrix v. Alcoa, Inc. (Arkansas Supreme Court, 2016). The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the estate's wrongful-death and survival suit against Alcoa, holding the workers' compensation exclusive-remedy provision barred it, and denied Alcoa's motion to dismiss the appeal.
• Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2002). The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the bench-trial judgment for Mary Hennegan and her late husband's estate against Garlock, Inc., which had to pay the damages less Cooper/T. Smith's 20 percent share.
• Herber v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1986). The Third Circuit vacated the zero-dollar judgment and remanded for a new trial limited to Herber's fear-of-cancer distress and cancer-monitoring costs. It affirmed the exclusion of increased-risk damages and rejected the asbestos suppliers' challenges to the liability findings.
• Herbert v. American Biltrite (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2016). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants (American Biltrite, Azrock, CertainTeed and others), holding the estate's claim time-barred and dismissing it with prejudice; the executor lost.
• Herman v. Abex Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The trial court denied Carlisle's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Elizabeth and Fred Herman won on the motion and the claims against Carlisle continue.
• Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of nonsuit for Amcord, Inc. and also reversed the trial court's exclusion of Amcord's lobbying evidence, ruling for plaintiff Natalia Hernandez on both points and sending the case back to the trial court.
• Hernandez v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2016). The district court granted plaintiff Hernandez's motion and remanded the case to New Jersey state court, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's claim that WCD and BSI were fraudulently joined.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The magistrate judge denied Honeywell International's (as alleged successor to Allied Chemical) alternative Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, so plaintiff Hernandez did not have to replead.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted the plaintiffs' (Hernandez's wife and daughter) motion to remand, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and sent the case back to the Orleans Parish Civil District Court over St. Joseph's opposition.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied Honeywell's motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff Jesse Hernandez plausibly alleged Honeywell owed him a duty for asbestos dust carried on its plant workers' clothing.
• Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied Jesse Hernandez's motion to remand, so the Avondale Interests (Huntington Ingalls and related defendants) kept the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Hernandez v. Todd Shipyards Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2004). The court granted plaintiff Eunice Hernandez's motion to remand the case to Orleans Parish Civil District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rejecting the removing defendants' LHWCA preemption argument, and denied her request for costs and expenses.
• Hernandez-Vega v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied Flowserve's summary judgment motion on the valve claims, finding it did not meet its burden and fact issues remained for the jury, but dismissed plaintiff's claims relating to Rockwell pumps because Flowserve never made them.
• Hernandezcueva v. EF Brady Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal reversed the nonsuit on the strict products liability claim against E. F. Brady, so the Hernandezcuevas won on that point and the matter was remanded. It affirmed the denial of a new trial and the rest of the judgment for E. F. Brady.
• Herold v. University of Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 2022). The Commonwealth Court affirmed, on different grounds, the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the University of Pittsburgh, and remanded so Herold's estate could pursue its common law claims against the University.
• Herr v. Linde LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Linde LLC (Airco) against plaintiff Janice Herr and the Estate of Richard Herr, finding no evidence Herr used Airco's gloves and, alternatively, that the strict liability claim was released in the earlier M&F settlement.
• Herring v. Texaco, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court, 2007). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, holding Todd's bankruptcy discharged Herring's claim because he was entitled only to publication notice.
• Hicks v. Biltrite (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2007). The court denied CertainTeed Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Deborah and William Hicks may continue their claim against it.
• Hicks v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2020). The district court denied Roy Hicks's motion to remand, finding that non-diverse defendant John Crane was fraudulently joined, so Ford Motor Company's removal to federal court stood.
• Hickson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2022). Affirmed summary judgment for ARCO and Brand Insulations, dismissing the estate's claim that asbestos exposure at the Cherry Point refinery caused Duane Hickson's mesothelioma.
• Hiett v. Ac&r Insulation Co., Inc. (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2017). The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for AC&R Insulation Co., ruling against Daniel and Jessica Hiett.
• Higginbotham v. Fibreboard Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1993). The Superior Court vacated the judgment for Nathan and Jean Higginbotham against Fibreboard Corporation and remanded for a new trial limited to Mr. Higginbotham's present injuries, so Fibreboard prevailed on appeal.
• Higgins v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1995). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and remanded for a new trial in favor of plaintiff Higgins, and dismissed Owens-Corning's cross appeal on the medical monitoring award as moot.
• Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. v. Onorato (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Highland Stucco and Lime v. Onorato (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco and Lime Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Hilbert v. Aeroquip, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2007). The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's report, finding no colorable military contractor or derivative sovereign immunity defense, so the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court succeeded and Northrop Grumman's motion to stay pending MDL transfer was denied.
• Hilbert v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2008). The court granted the Hilberts' motion to remand and sent the whole case back to Massachusetts state court, finding that McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon had not shown a colorable federal contractor defense; the removing defendants lost.
• Hill v. Mallinckrodt LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The district court denied Mallinckrodt's Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join the settled general contractors, so the executor's wrongful-death suit proceeds.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court granted defendant Eckel Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs for lack of evidence that Mr. Hilster was exposed to an Eckel asbestos product, and dismissed Eckel's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor to Buffalo Pumps, and entered judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court granted summary judgment for The William Powell Company against the Hilster plaintiffs because there was no evidence Mr. Hilster was exposed to asbestos from a Powell product, and dismissed Powell's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Warren Pumps, LLC and against the Hilster plaintiffs, and dismissed Warren's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' two experts as moot.
• Hilt v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2018). On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against Foster Wheeler continue.
• Hinson v. Continental Tire the Americas (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of the asbestosis claim of Walter Hinson's estate (and the common-issues rulings against all consolidated plaintiffs), so Continental Tire the Americas prevailed.
• Hipwell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2022). The court denied all three of plaintiff Hipwell's motions in limine, so defendant Foster Wheeler may present evidence of the Navy's negligence and knowledge about asbestos hazards and may offer its corporate witnesses' testimony, subject to later specific objections.
• Hipwell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2022). The district court denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on all of Marguerite Hipwell's claims, so the claims against Foster Wheeler go forward.
• HK Porter Company, Inc. v. Transit Casualty Company IN Receivership (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 2006). The appeals court affirmed the judgment for Transit Casualty, holding that H.K. Porter and its subsidiaries, including the acquired asbestos companies, were covered by the policies but subject to the asbestos-related injury exclusion for the whole policy period, including May 1-24, 1982.
• Hobby v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 1983). The court granted summary judgment to the defendants (Keene, Armstrong Cork, Celotex, Standard Insulation, Pittsburg Corning, GAF) on the widow's claims for medical and funeral expenses, lost earnings and pain and suffering as time-barred, but denied it on the wrongful-death loss of consortium claim and on the products liability claim.
• Hockler v. William Powell Company (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment, granted The William Powell Company's motion, and dismissed plaintiff Bryan Hockler's complaint.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Imerys Talc America Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it with prejudice and denying leave to amend and Imerys's request for attorney's fees.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court denied the Hodjeras' motion to amend their complaint as futile and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, the Volkswagen entities, the Dana entities, Imerys Talc America and Honeywell for lack of specific jurisdiction in Washington.