Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• Ibarra v. CH Murphy/clark-Ullman, Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2024). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for plaintiff Brenda Ibarra on defendant Ameron's workers' compensation exclusive remedy defense and remanded; plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed.
• Ierardi v. Lorillard, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1991). The court granted Lorillard's and Hollingsworth & Vose's motions to dismiss plaintiffs' continuing duty to warn claim, ruling that evidence of H & V's knowledge of asbestos dangers after 1957 was irrelevant.
• Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Gregory (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Tunica County Circuit Court's denial of Illinois Central Railroad's motion to transfer and/or dismiss, holding the nine employees were improperly joined; out-of-state claims were to be dismissed and the rest severed and transferred to proper venues.
• Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Oakes EX rel. Hagan (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2018). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding Illinois Central Railroad entitled to a pro tanto setoff for asbestos trust payments, and remanded for a hearing on whether the payments covered the same injuries.
• IN Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and its motion to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs won.
• In re ACandS, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2011). The bankruptcy court denied Garlock Sealing Technologies' motions to intervene, to reopen the closed asbestos bankruptcy cases, and for access to the Rule 2019 statements, ruling for the debtors and the asbestos claimants' committees.
• In re ACandS, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2004). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of ACandS's Chapter 11 plan, ruling that it did not meet the requirements of § 524(g) and was not proposed in good faith, which favored objector Travelers over the debtor and the plan's supporters.
• In re Aldrich Pump LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2023). The bankruptcy court denied the asbestos claimants' committee's and Maune claimants' motions to dismiss the Aldrich Pump and Murray Boiler Chapter 11 cases, so the Debtors prevailed.
• In re Aldrich Pump LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The bankruptcy court granted the Debtors' partial summary judgment motion declaring the automatic stay applies to asbestos actions against the non-debtor Protected Parties, maintained the preliminary injunction against such actions, and granted in part and denied in part the asbestos claimants committee's motion to compel.
• In re All Asbestos Litigation (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 4th Division, 2008). The appellate court reversed the trial court's order compelling Warren Pumps to produce nearly 40 years of Illinois sales records, and vacated the $1 'friendly contempt' citation against its attorney, remanding for further proceedings.
• Bowens v. Sager Corp. (In re All Cases Against Sager Corp.) (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the trial court could not appoint a receiver for dissolved Illinois corporation Sager, ruling for Sager and against the asbestos claimants, and remanded.
• In re All Maine Asbestos Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Maine, 1986). The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss the Longshore Act vessel-owner part of Count VI, but denied it as to the Maine-law land-based theories because factual issues remained on whether Navy conduct was discretionary.
• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The bankruptcy court granted the joint motion and approved the amended buyout agreement between Honeywell and the NARCO asbestos trust (with the trust's advisory committee and the future claimants' representative joining), confirmed that the channeling injunction stays in place, and reserved the London market insurers' separate rights.
• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The bankruptcy court denied the insurers' motion to unredact claimant information in 28 trial exhibits, ruling the unredacted versions were never filed and so carried no right of public access, a win for Honeywell, the Trust, TAC and FCR over the insurers.
• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2015). The bankruptcy court denied, without prejudice, Honeywell's motion for a preliminary injunction against the NARCO Asbestos Trust's handling of expedited claims, so the Trust prevailed for now; the court also raised its own doubts about subject matter jurisdiction.
• In re Alrich Pump, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2023). The district court granted the Appellants' (Non-Party Certain Matching Claimants') motion and stayed the Bankruptcy Court's order denying anonymity pending appeal, ruling against debtor Aldrich Pump LLC's position.
• In re Api, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota, 2005). The bankruptcy court granted the Debtor's motion for summary judgment on the insurance-related, standing and exoneration issues, ruling that the plan does not alter insurers' policy rights, that the insurers lack standing to object on five groups of issues, and that the exoneration provision is lawful.
• In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2006). The district court overruled the Unsecured Creditors' Committee's unfair-discrimination objection and found $3.1 billion a reasonable estimate of Armstrong's asbestos personal injury liability, so the plan did not unfairly discriminate against unsecured creditors, a result favoring the debtor and asbestos claimants.
• Toy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The district court denied Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes on exposure to asbestos from its pumps and gaskets and on substantial-factor causation, so plaintiffs Agnes Toy and Thomas Toy, Jr. prevailed on the motion.
• Toy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted Warren Pumps' and Armstrong International's motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert Captain Burger from testifying that Mr. Toy worked on or around those companies' products or about land-based steam traps.
• Toy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The federal district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to exclude the testimony of defense experts Dr. Paustenbach and Dr. Roggli, so the defendants won the ruling.
• Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted in part and denied in part Armstrong's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert Dr. Brody (he may give general but not specific causation testimony) and denied Warren Pumps' and Honeywell's motion to exclude "every exposure" testimony, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial.
• Toy v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The district court denied Honeywell's motion to exclude plaintiffs' causation expert Dr. Carl Brodkin, so the Toy plaintiffs won the ruling, and it terminated as moot the parallel motions by Ingersoll-Rand, Morse TEC and Metalclad.
• Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted the Toy plaintiffs' motion to strike defense expert Dr. Gail Stockman's testimony on asbestos state of the art and on asbestos exposure and risk from steam traps, a ruling against defendant Armstrong International.
• Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert Dr. Staggs: it kept only two pages of his rebuttal report and barred him from testifying in the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, but refused to strike the report as untimely.
• In re Asbestos Cases (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 1991). The appellate court dismissed Allied Signal's appeal from the order creating the asbestos deferred registry for lack of jurisdiction, because the order was not an appealable injunction; the plaintiffs and the other defendants who supported the order prevailed.
• Anderson v. Asbestos Defendants (In re Asbestos Cases OF Hatch) (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2007). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief and continued to defer ruling on their motion to remand, leaving the case to the MDL court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after the conditional transfer order.
• Braxton v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2024). The court granted defendant J-M Manufacturing's motion for leave to designate responsible third parties, rejecting plaintiff Braxton's objections on pleading sufficiency, limitations timing and bankruptcy proofs of claim.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2023). The Delaware Supreme Court refused Hennessy Industries' petition for an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court's denial of summary judgment, so the case against Hennessy continues for plaintiff Estrada.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court denied defendant Hennessy Industries' request to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of the earlier denial of its summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Estrada prevailed on this request.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2023). The court denied Hennessy Industries' motion for reargument, so its earlier oral denial of summary judgment on the duty-to-warn claim stood and the plaintiff, Lisa Estrada, prevailed on this motion.
• Roadarmel v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2023). The magistrate judge recommended denying Curtiss-Wright's motion for summary judgment, so Plaintiff Patricia Roadarmel's claims over her husband's mesothelioma death could go forward.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against Rickey and Barbara Thorne on all claims, including loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The district court overruled Foster Wheeler's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, so the Cox plaintiff's claims proceed.
• Cox v. Nash Engineering Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting Nash Engineering's unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Doris Anne Cox because there was no evidence Mr. Cox was exposed to a Nash product.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). A magistrate judge recommended denying Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on causation, failure to warn under Devries, and the government contractor defense, so plaintiff Doris Anne Cox's claims against Foster Wheeler would proceed.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The magistrate judge granted the defendants' (Crane Co., ITT, Johnson Controls and Metropolitan Life) joint motion and ruled that Iowa substantive law, not North Dakota law as the Thornes argued, governs all claims and defenses.
• Burdick v. NIBCO (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2021). The court denied NIBCO's motion for summary judgment, so the Burdick plaintiffs' claims against NIBCO go forward because fact issues remain about whether Walter Burdick was exposed to asbestos-containing NIBCO valves.
• Carnes v. General Dynamics Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting General Dynamics' motion for summary judgment against the Carnes plaintiffs because they produced no evidence that Mr. Carnes was exposed to an asbestos-containing product attributable to General Dynamics.
• Pearsons v. Heidelberg USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2020). The court denied Heidelberg USA's summary judgment motion on causation, statute of repose and product misuse, and granted it only on the willful and wanton conduct claim, which Mrs. Pearsons did not contest.
• Pruitt v. Gardner Denver (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2020). The district court overruled Gardner Denver's and Warren Pumps' objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied both companies' motions for summary judgment against plaintiff John Pruitt.
• Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2020). The Delaware Superior Court granted Hennessy Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Petit plaintiffs, because plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos-containing brakes or to friable asbestos with the AMMCO machines.
• Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Amdura and BorgWarner Morse TEC, and denying summary judgment for Gardner Denver and Warren Pumps, in John Pruitt's mesothelioma suit.
• Pruitt v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Taco, Terex and Trane, and partial summary judgment for Deere, against plaintiff John Pruitt, who did not oppose the motions.
• Shaw v. American Friction (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2020). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the Shaws' motion to move the trial group, and the resulting dismissal, in favor of the defendants; two justices dissented.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2020). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the $40.625 million compensatory verdict for Paula Knecht in place.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2019). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ford's motion for judgment as a matter of law and its inconsistent-verdict challenge, but reversed on the excessive-damages ruling and remanded so the Superior Court could assess the full $40,625,000 verdict for new trial or remittitur; Ford won in part and Knecht won in part.
• Mosher v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's (successor to Buffalo Pumps) motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher because the evidence did not show its pump was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Mosher v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all ten defendants (ABB, Aurora Pump, Crosby Valve, FMC, Gardner Denver, Gould Electronics, Pfizer, Siemens, Union Carbide and Warren Pumps) against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher, who did not respond to the motions.
• Stimson v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2019). The court denied Janet Stimson's motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. on product identification.