Asbestos Cases A–Z: H

245 decisions whose name begins with H.

• Hostetler v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 2021). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part JCI's motion: JCI won on the asbestos trespass claim, the Hostetlers' time-barred vapor claims, and the negligence and emotional distress claims, while the other plaintiffs' trespass and nuisance claims over solvent vapors were left for trial.
• Hostetler v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 2021). The court granted Johnson Controls' motion for summary judgment on the neighbors' Indiana Environmental Legal Action (ELA) claim, and also granted Johnson Controls' motion to strike two of the plaintiffs' expert's opinions, granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike in part, and denied a second Johnson Controls motion to strike as moot.
• Hostetler v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 2020). The court granted Johnson Controls' motion to exclude three experts' opinions that the five plaintiffs face increased future health risks from TCE, PCE and asbestos exposure, so the plaintiffs lost on that motion.
• Hostetter v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court granted summary judgment to ArvinMeritor against plaintiff Eliza Hostetter because she could not show that her late husband was exposed to ArvinMeritor's asbestos-containing brake products.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court denied, without prejudice, Patricia Hotard's motions to dismiss the indemnity and defense claims brought against her by Avondale and Hopeman Interests, and also denied Hopeman Interests' motion for declaratory judgment.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Avondale's partial summary judgment motion, granted Hopeman Interests' motion in part and denied it in part, and denied SeaRiver's cross-motion, so SeaRiver did not obtain indemnity from Avondale or Hopeman Interests at this stage.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual's motion to reconsider the order letting SeaRiver and Exxon Mobil file a third-party demand, and denied their alternative motion to dismiss, so SeaRiver's contractual indemnity claim goes forward.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted SeaRiver and Exxon's motion for reconsideration and for leave to file a cross-claim and third-party demands against Avondale, Hopeman and Liberty Mutual, finding the motion timely, finding Avondale had waived arbitration, and finding an intervening change in controlling law.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied SeaRiver Maritime's motion for summary judgment, joined by Exxon Mobil, so the plaintiff's negligence and strict liability claims against them go forward.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Lamorak Insurance Company's motion, stayed the whole action and administratively closed it because of Lamorak's liquidation, denied Plaintiff Hotard's alternative request to sever claims involving Lamorak and its insureds, and set a status conference.
• Hotard v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied Paul Hotard's motion to remand, holding that Avondale was named as a defendant in the state court petition and properly removed the case, so Avondale prevailed.
• Houston v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted general contractor Morse Diesel's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against it; the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Houston v. Beazer E., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted Glenwood Mason Supply Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and cross-claims against it because it was not the successor to Glenwood Mason Supply Co.; the case continues against the other defendants.
• Houston v. Beazer E., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted general contractor Tishman Liquidating Corporation's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs Thomas and Ellen Houston's claims and all cross-claims against it, while the case continued against the other defendants.
• Hovsepian v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The court denied plaintiff Berj Hovsepian's motion to remand, so defendant Crane Co. kept the case in federal court after removing it under the federal officer removal statute.
• Hovsepian v. the Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The court granted defendant BW/IP's motion to dismiss, holding plaintiff Hovsepian's claims against it barred by collateral estoppel because a Massachusetts court had earlier granted BW/IP summary judgment on causation.
• Hovsepian v. the Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The court denied defendant CBS Corporation's motion to certify its personal-jurisdiction ruling for interlocutory appeal, so plaintiff Hovsepian prevailed on this motion.
• Howard v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Armstrong Pumps partial summary judgment for exposure before December 20, 1965 (which plaintiffs conceded), and otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment, so plaintiffs Howard and his spouse won on the remaining claims.
• Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2013). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on the plaintiffs' concession, vacated the Superior Court's order and reversed it, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants (Monsey, Ace Hardware, Pecora).
• Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2011). The Superior Court reversed the orders granting summary judgment to Chesterton, ACE Hardware, Monsey, Pecora and Union Carbide, vacated the judgment, and remanded the plaintiffs' case for further proceedings.
• Howard v. Owens Corning (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens Corning on a jury verdict that Howard's asbestos exposure was not a cause of his injury, and rejected the Howards' claim that they were entitled to a directed verdict.
• Howell v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1990). The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict for the asbestos defendants, holding that the district court properly let the jury decide whether Howell's pleural thickening was a compensable injury.
• Hoyt v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2013). The federal district court granted Lockheed Shipbuilding Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Loretta Hoyt's take-home asbestos claim with prejudice, because the risk to her was not reasonably foreseeable in the 1950s.
• Hsieh v. Apache Deepwater, LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2021). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff David Hsieh's motions to compel discovery against BP, Chevron, Exxon and Texaco, so the defendants prevailed on the motions.
• Hsieh v. Apache Deepwater, LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied plaintiff David Hsieh's motion for reconsideration of its order denying remand, leaving in place federal OCSLA jurisdiction and the removal by defendants Apache Deepwater and ENSCO.
• Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted seven defendants' unopposed motions for summary judgment (Nustar, Murphy EXPRO, Union Carbide, Montello, Apache, and the Baker Hughes entities) and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice.
• Hsieh v. Badger Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted summary judgment to Badger Oil Corporation and Klentos Production Corporation, dismissing plaintiff David Hsieh's claims against them with prejudice because he did not oppose and they had no role in his exposure.
• Hubbard v. California Water Service Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for defendants California Water Service Company and San Jose Water Company after a defense jury verdict, rejecting the Hubbard heirs' challenges to the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence.
• Huber v. Watson (Iowa Supreme Court, 1997). The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict that the trial court had granted to the attorney defendants (Watson, Gajdel, Blue and Baron & Budd), and remanded for the trial court to rule on their new-trial motion.
• Hubert v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2016). The court found Plaintiff Patricia Hubert had not properly pleaded diversity jurisdiction against General Electric and ordered her to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2016; pending motions were denied as moot.
• Huff v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2019). The Appellate Division vacated its order granting leave to appeal as improvidently granted, dismissed Cyprus Amax's interlocutory appeal, and remanded, leaving in place the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in favor of the Huff plaintiffs.
• Hughes v. Olin Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2003). The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment granting Olin Corporation's exception of prescription and remanded, so Letha Hughes's suit against Olin was revived.
• Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 1987). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the pleadings for Western MacArthur, holding Hughes was not required to plead the dual capacity doctrine, though she was required to plead successor liability.
• Hulin v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The district court granted Bayer CropScience's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff William Hulin Sr.'s claims against Bayer.
• Humphries v. OneBEACON America Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The district court denied plaintiff John Humphries's motion to remand, finding defendant Elliott Company made a sufficient showing for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 and was entitled to a federal forum.
• Humphries v. OneBEACON America Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The district court denied Elliott Company's motion to stay its remand order pending appeal, so plaintiff John Humphries' case stays remanded to state court.
• Hunter v. Coty, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court granted Chanel's motion to reargue only to vacate one sentence of its prior decision, but otherwise left in place its order that Chanel complete plaintiff Faye Hunter's deposition by written interrogatories within 45 days, so plaintiff largely prevailed.
• Hunter v. Coty, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels' motion to reargue only to vacate a sentence saying its right to cross-examine plaintiff Faye Hunter was satisfied, but denied its request to vacate the order that it complete her deposition by written interrogatories.
• Hunter v. Coty, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied defendant Whittaker Clark & Daniels' appeal of the Special Master's ruling, refused to preclude plaintiff Faye Hunter's incomplete deposition testimony or to compel her to finish it, and ordered written interrogatories instead.
• Hunton v. City of Bowling Green (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Warren Circuit Court's summary judgment dismissing the asbestos negligence claim against the City of Bowling Green, so the Hunton estate lost.
• Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted summary judgment to Huntington Ingalls (as successor to Ingalls Shipyard), Redco, Sank, Inc. and Bayer CropScience for lack of evidence that Mr. Hutchins was exposed to their asbestos, and denied John Crane's motion, so claims involving John Crane's gaskets and packing proceed.
• Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The district court denied the Hutchins plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment on exposure and causation as to A.W. Chesterton, Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Dixie Machine, Foster Wheeler and International Paper, so Continental Insurance and Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) prevailed on the motions.
• Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied Dixie Machine's motion for summary judgment without prejudice, as premature before discovery, so Dixie Machine may reurge it later; the plaintiffs and Huntington Ingalls prevailed for now.
• Hutchinson v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2004). The court granted summary judgment to Garlock, the employer, because New Jersey's workers' compensation exclusive remedy barred the estate's common law suit; the estate lost against Garlock.
• Hymel v. Eagle, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the exception of res judicata for J.D. Roberts and Commercial Union Insurance Company, dismissing Ralph Hymel's mesothelioma claims with prejudice based on his 1998 release.