Asbestos Cases A–Z: H

245 decisions whose name begins with H.

• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Honeywell International's motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against Honeywell with prejudice and denying leave to amend.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion for a priority trial setting, because the existing March 5, 2018 trial date already matched the seven-month timeline they requested.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them until June 2, 2017 to move to amend.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it without prejudice, with leave to seek amendment by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group of America's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2002). The appeals court affirmed most of the jury verdict for the Hoerners but reversed liability for McCarty as employer of other insulators, for Mr. Schuber III, Mr. McCarty and Home Insurance, and four settling-defendant credits, and amended the judgment to $306,111.07.
• Hoff v. Certainteed Corp. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2021). The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Patricia Hoff and the estate of David Hoff against Kaiser Gypsum, rejecting Kaiser Gypsum's challenges to the denial of a directed verdict, the post-trial amendment ruling, and the consortium damages award.
• Hoffman v. AC&S, Inc. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for AC&S, Rapid-American and Armstrong World Industries because Hoffman did not show their products were the ones her brothers were exposed to, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice as to Pittsburgh-Corning and Asbestos Claims Management Company because of their bankruptcies.
• Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1990). The Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for Armstrong World Industries and the other defendants and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact for the Hoffmans' claim.
• Hoffman v. General Electric Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's CR 12(b)(6) dismissal of Larry Hoffman's claims against General Electric and Ketchikan Pulp Company and remanded, so Hoffman prevailed on the appeal, although the 'defective product' exception was held not to save his claim against Ketchikan.
• Hoffman v. Ketchikan Pulp Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ketchikan Pulp Co. against Hoffman, his wife and his estate, holding that Alaska's statute of repose barred the claim.
• Hoffman v. West Virginia Office OF Insurance Commissioner, W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 2012 (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 2012). The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Review's order denying Audrey Hoffman dependent's death benefits, so the widow lost and Appalachian Power Company and the Office of Insurance Commissioner prevailed.
• Hogland v. Celotex Corp. (Alabama Supreme Court, 1993). The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the remaining defendants and remanded, directing the trial court to identify who the remaining defendants are and set the case for trial; the executrix, Yvonne Hogland, prevailed.
• Hogston v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The court granted summary judgment to National Service Industries (successor to distributor North Bros.) and against plaintiff Doris Hogston, because she could not show North Bros. supplied the Kaylo insulation to the plant.
• Hogston v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The court granted summary judgment to National Service Industries (successor to distributor North Bros.) and against plaintiff Doris Hogston, because she had no evidence that North Bros. supplied the Kaylo insulation to the plant.
• Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1996). The Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict for the shipping company and manufacturer defendants and remanded for a new trial, because the district court wrongly limited the testimony of plaintiff's treating physician and pulmonologist; it affirmed the other challenged rulings and denied reassignment to a new judge.
• Holcomb v. Colvin (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2015). The court denied plaintiff Glenn Holcomb's motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner's cross-motion, and directed entry of judgment for the Commissioner, upholding the denial of disability benefits.
• Holdren v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2009). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding that the Navy-contractor defendants (Buffalo Pumps, Foster Wheeler, Viad, GE and Elliott Turbo Machinery) had not shown a colorable federal contractor defense or a causal connection to support federal officer removal.
• Holdsworth v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict of about $16.7 million for the Holdsworth estate and Sherrie Holdsworth against Scapa Waycross, and upheld the denial of Scapa's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
• Holland v. Airco, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2016). The district court granted summary judgment to Crane, Fluor Daniel and Goulds Pumps, ending the plaintiff's claims over Owen Holland's mesothelioma death.
• Holland v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment based on the military contractor defense, so the plaintiff's claims against it continue.
• Holliday v. Warren Pumps LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Warren Pumps LLC, holding that plaintiffs Ray and Shirley Holliday's expert declarations were speculative and raised no triable issue of exposure to a Warren product.
• Hollingsworth v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied McWane, Inc.'s (Clow Valve Company's) motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff's claim against Clow went forward.
• Hollingsworth v. Connor (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2000). The court reversed the judgment against Hollingsworth & Vose for lack of personal jurisdiction in Maryland, affirmed the rulings favoring Connor against Lorillard on the jury instructions, expert testimony, sufficiency of evidence and spoliation, and remanded on the noneconomic damages cap and settlement credits.
• Holloway v. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2014). The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois after a jury verdict and the denial of a new trial, so Carol Holloway lost.
• Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1999). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and dismissal in favor of the asbestos defendants, holding Holmes's wrongful death claim was timely, so she (the plaintiff) prevailed.
• Holmes v. Bossier (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Huntington Ingalls and Bossier timely removed the case under the federal officer removal statute within thirty days of the Fifth Circuit's en banc Latiolais decision.
• Holste v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2025). The court granted the Holstes' motion to remand to Los Angeles Superior Court, rejecting Boeing's federal officer removal, and denied the Holstes' request for attorney fees and costs.
• Holzer v. Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, 2017). The district court granted the Holzers' motion to remand to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, rejecting Athene's fraudulent joinder argument, because non-diverse defendant Fuhrco was not fraudulently joined and the court lacked diversity jurisdiction.
• Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The district court granted Burnham LLC's unopposed motion for summary judgment on all six causes of action, ruling against the plaintiff estate, and directed entry of judgment for Burnham.
• Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The court granted Ingersoll-Rand's unopposed motion for summary judgment on all six claims, ruling for Ingersoll and against the plaintiff estate representative, because there was no evidence the decedent was exposed to an Ingersoll asbestos product.
• Homax Products, Inc. v. Old Magic Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2014). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Homax Products lacked standing to pursue its indemnification, breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against Old Magic, Alscott, Acme and the Zeilingers.
• Honer v. Ford Motor Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for Ford Motor Company and Merck & Co. and remanded with directions to deny both motions, so plaintiff Eileen Honer prevailed on appeal.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2009). Reversed the $24,170,000 judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the letter evidence, the verdict form, the consortium award and the setoff.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2009). The appeals court reversed the $24.17 million judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the evidence ruling, the verdict form, the consortium award and the settlement setoff.
• Honor v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2019). The district court granted the executrix's motion to remand and returned the case against Johnson & Johnson to Middlesex Superior Court, rejecting J&J's claim of bankruptcy 'related-to' jurisdiction.
• Hooper-Lynch v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims and all cross-claims, so the plaintiff's case proceeds toward trial.
• Hooper-Lynch v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court granted Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for 1968-1979 exposure, which plaintiff did not dispute, but denied it for 1980-1985 because expert testimony conflicted.
• Hopeman Brothers, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2018). The court granted in part and denied in part both sides' summary judgment motions, ruling for Hopeman Brothers on all-sums allocation, vertical exhaustion and most non-cumulation clause issues, and for Continental and Lexington on the meaning of "loss" and the 1971-74 Lexington defense-cost coverage.
• Hopkins v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motion to consolidate the two Hopkins cases for trial only, over the objections of the plaintiffs and several defendants, and continued the May 9, 2011 trial date.
• Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2006). The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the California Action and denied Imperial Tobacco Canada's petition to transfer it to Delaware, so Flintkote, the committees and the Hopkins family won and ITCAN lost.
• Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2006). The district court granted the plaintiffs' (Hopkins heirs and Flintkote) motion to remand the case to San Francisco Superior Court, rejecting Imperial Tobacco and Sullivan & Cromwell's arguments that federal jurisdiction was mandatory; the motions to transfer and stay were not granted (the stay motion was moot).
• Horrie v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court granted the Horries' motion to remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County, rejecting Crane Company's removal based on the government contractor defense.
• Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, which had upheld summary judgment for the asbestos product defendants, and remanded to the trial court, so the Hortons and Derrick won on the causation standard. It agreed with the appellate court that alternative liability does not apply.
• Horvath v. Acf Indus., LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied defendant CSX Transportation's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs' case stays in New York County.
• Horvath v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied defendant Ameron International Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Susan Horvath's claims over Rudolf Horvath's exposure to Bondstrand pipes go forward.
• Hoskins v. Business Men's Assur. (Missouri Supreme Court, 2002). The Missouri Supreme Court held section 537.675 (state lien on 50% of punitive damages) constitutional, rejecting Federal-Mogul and T & N's excessive fines, due process and takings challenges, and transferred the remaining appeal issues to the Court of Appeals, Western District.
• Hoskins v. Business Men's Assurance (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 2003). The appeals court affirmed the jury's verdicts for Forest and Julia Hoskins against T & N and Federal-Mogul, including the $7 million punitive award, but reversed the trial court's award of prejudgment interest on the punitive damages.