Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• Darden v. Western Asbestos Settlement Trust (In re Western Asbestos Co.) (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The bankruptcy court denied the Dardens' summary judgment motion and granted summary judgment to the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust, holding that Edward Darden's 1986 release and claim preclusion barred his June 2017 trust claim.
• Darden v. Western Asbestos Settlement Trust (In re Western Asbestos Settlement Trust) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2022). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's summary judgments for the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust, holding the 1986 release and claim preclusion barred Darden's personal injury claim and the Trust need not pay the heirs' wrongful death claims; the Dardens lost, and the Trust's motion to strike new reply-brief arguments was granted.
• In re Wilhite (Texas Court of Appeals, 2009). The court of appeals denied the Wilhites' petition for mandamus, so the judge stayed on the case and Alcoa prevailed over the Wilhites, with three justices dissenting.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The district court, sitting as a bankruptcy appellate court, denied Anderson Memorial Hospital's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from its order affirming confirmation of W.R. Grace's reorganization plan, so Grace prevailed.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and its confirmation of Grace's Chapter 11 plan, rejecting the objections of the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, Canada, Anderson Memorial Hospital, the Bank Lenders, Garlock and three insurers. In a short appended memorandum it denied Garlock's motion for a stay pending appeal.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and confirmed Grace's Chapter 11 plan with its two asbestos trusts and Section 524(g) channeling injunction, overruling all objections from the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, the Crown, Anderson Memorial Hospital, Garlock, the Bank Lenders and the insurers.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2009). The district court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's order granting W.R. Grace summary judgment that the State of California's sixteen asbestos property damage claims were time-barred, ruling for the State and finding a fact question on when contamination occurred.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2006). The bankruptcy court granted W.R. Grace's summary judgment motion in part, finding no evidence that Zonolite Attic Insulation poses an unreasonable risk of harm, and denied the ZAI Claimants' motion except for an order that the undisputed facts of asbestos contamination and fiber release on disturbance were established.
• IN the Matter of Cammarata v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2005). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Jack Cammarata's death from mesothelioma was work-related and that Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Azor Drywall's carrier, was liable, so the claimant won and Azor and Merchants lost.
• IN the Matter of Compensation OF Solberg (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's order upholding the employers' denial of claimant Solberg's occupational disease claim for pleural plaques, because he had no 'disease'.
• IN the Matter of Estate OF Foster (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1989). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for the asbestos insulation manufacturer defendants and the denial of a new trial, rejecting the estate's challenges to the expert testimony, the government specification instruction and the deposition admission.
• IN the Matter of Mlodozeniec v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2009). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that State Insurance Fund was the liable carrier, holding that Zurich, Trio's insurer on the date of disablement, must pay, and remitted the matter to the Board.
• North v. National Grid Generation (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2016). The First Department affirmed the jury judgment for plaintiff against National Grid ($3.5 million for future pain and suffering), and modified the indemnification order so National Grid also recovers attorneys' fees for defending plaintiff's action against O'Connor, otherwise affirming.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2012). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' actions against Colgate-Palmolive for a joint trial, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's challenge.
• Kline v. Crane Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Kline estate's complaint and all cross-claims against Crane Co., while the case continued against the remaining defendants.
• IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, 2007). The court denied Chrysler's post-verdict motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs, Alfred and Margaret D'Ulisse, kept the verdict.
• Diedrich v. Robert A. Keasbey Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Robert A. Keasbey Company, so the executrix's claims go to trial.
• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (IN the Matter of the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2019). The trial court denied defendant Jenkins Bros.' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial and remittitur, and also denied the plaintiffs' motion for a separate jury charge or new trial on future household services, leaving the verdict for the Stocks in place.
• IN the Matter of United States Lines Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2006). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order expunging the proofs of claim of merchant mariners Murphy, White and Keating as untimely under the Rolling Bar Date Order, in favor of the U.S. Lines Trust.
• Independent School Dist. No. 197 v. WR Grace (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 1990). The federal district court denied W.R. Grace's motions for summary judgment and dismissal on the limitations/repose, revival-statute, economic loss, merchantability, restitution, trade practices and preemption issues, and denied certification to the Minnesota Supreme Court; it granted Grace's unopposed motion on the implied warranty of fitness claim.
• Indus. Indemnity Co. v. Worker's Comp. App. BD. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1983). The court annulled the workers' compensation judge's findings and the Appeals Board's denial of reconsideration, and directed the Board to decide which employer or insurer (Industrial Indemnity or self-insured National) was liable; this favored petitioner Industrial Indemnity.
• Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 2nd Division, 2020). The court reversed the judgment against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies on two out-of-state plaintiffs' claims and against Johnson & Johnson on all seventeen out-of-state plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, rejected the defendants' other challenges, and entered a reduced judgment of $500 million compensatory and $900 million punitive against JJCI and $125 million compensatory and $715,909,091 punitive against J&J.
• Ingram v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1994). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Ingram's workers' compensation claim, held he was entitled to employer-paid medical benefits for periodic pulmonary exams and related treatment, found his disability claim not yet ripe, and remanded to determine the medical benefits due.
• Ins. Co. North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1980). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment adopting the exposure theory, so all of Forty-Eight Insulations' insurers on the risk during the exposure years share defense and indemnity costs pro rata, with Forty-Eight bearing the share for uninsured years; INA, Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual lost, and Forty-Eight and Travelers largely won.
• Ins. Co. of NA v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1981). On rehearing, the court held that mesothelioma and lung cancer are treated like asbestosis for insurance coverage, adhered to the exposure theory and to allocating defense costs like liability costs, and granted the rehearing petitions only in part.
• Ins. Co. of No. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1978). After a trial, the court held that the exposure theory governs coverage, so every insurer on the risk during a claimant's exposure must share defense and indemnity for Forty-Eight Insulations, with Forty-Eight bearing shares for uninsured years. This rejected the manifestation theory urged by INA, Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual.
• International Paper Co. v. Labour & Indus. Rev. Com'n (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001). The court affirmed the circuit court order upholding the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ruling that International Paper, not the Work Injury Supplemental Benefit Fund, must pay Lorraine Wieseler's death benefits.
• Irani v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Chevron and Exxon defendants, holding they owed no duty of care to Ali Irani, so the Irani plaintiffs lost.
• Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. Color Techniques, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2024). The court denied Color Techniques' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking a declaration that insurer Ironshore must defend it in the California asbestos suits, so Ironshore won at this stage.
• Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Pifer (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2022). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, which had reversed the exclusion of the eBay chalk samples and the summary judgment for Irwin, so the Pifer Estate won and the case was remanded.
• Israel v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2022). The court granted John Crane's motion for summary judgment, holding Norman Israel's maritime-law lung cancer claims time-barred because he knew or should have known of the cause by December 21, 2016.
• Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Bobbie and Helen Izell against Union Carbide, upholding the jury's liability and comparative-fault findings, the compensatory award as reduced to $6 million, and the $18 million punitive award.
• Izell v. Union Carbide Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Bobbie and Helen Izell against Union Carbide, upholding the liability finding, the fault allocation, the remitted $6 million compensatory award and the $18 million punitive award.
• Izell v. Union Carbide Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Bobbie and Helen Izell against Union Carbide, including the remitted $6 million compensatory award and the $18 million punitive award; one justice dissented in part on the punitive award.