Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• Rogers v. Asbestos Corp. Limited (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The district court overruled Rogers's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and granted summary judgment to Asbestos Corporation Limited and Charles A. Wagner Company, so Rogers lost his claims against both.
• Rogers v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Warren Pumps, General Electric, Air & Liquid Systems, Charles A. Wagner Co., and Asbestos Corporation Ltd. against plaintiff Richard Rogers, because he could not show exposure to any defendant's product.
• Rogers v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting defendant Nosroc Corp.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Richard Wayne Rogers because he offered no evidence of exposure to any Nosroc product.
• Rowland v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Jane and Douglas Rowland because they could not show that the joint compound they used contained Union Carbide's asbestos.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2019). The Delaware Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its alternative motion for a new trial, and its motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the plaintiff's jury verdict in place.
• Call v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2018). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Marilyn Kay Call, holding Indiana's "but for" causation standard applies and her expert's opinion did not meet it.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2018). The court denied the Richards plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert's report and for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Fairbanks, Ford and Goodyear.
• Pieno v. Crosby Valve (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Crosby Valve, Fairbanks, BorgWarner Morse Tec, Flowserve and Warren Pumps against plaintiffs John and Dione Pieno, who did not respond to the motions.
• Kister v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2018). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps, Fairbanks, CertainTeed, Foster Wheeler, Union Carbide, Aurora and Pfizer, because Mr. Kister identified none of their asbestos-containing products and the plaintiff did not respond.
• Kivell v. Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2018). The court granted Georgia Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Sandra Kivell's wrongful death and survival claims were time barred under Louisiana's one-year limit.
• Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2018). The Superior Court affirmed the Special Master's order excluding William Don Sykes's videotaped trial deposition at trial, a ruling for the defendants and against the plaintiff estate.
• Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment against Phillip and Naomi Walsh because they did not show that Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos from Aurora's products.
• Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court denied Pneumo Abex LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Raymond Leathers' claims against Abex go forward to trial.
• Walsh v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiffs Phillip and Naomi Walsh, finding no evidence Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos parts the defendant was responsible for.
• Belac v. Evenheat Kiln (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2017). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Evenheat Kiln and Sargent Art, and also denied Evenheat's motion to strike the daughter's affidavit under the sham affidavit doctrine, so plaintiff Loretta Belac's claims continued.
• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Caterpillar, VIAD, Warren Pumps, Crane and Ford, because the plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos from any of their products, so the plaintiff lost against all five.
• Kivell v. Air Prods. and Chemicals (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted Air Products and Chemicals Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability and wrongful death claims, ruling against plaintiff Sandra Kivell.
• Evans v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended that the District Judge deny John Crane's motion for partial summary judgment on the Evans plaintiffs' punitive damages claim, because a factual dispute exists about what John Crane knew.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Foster Wheeler and Warren Pumps because the Evans plaintiffs failed to show exposure to asbestos from either defendant's product that was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Kivell v. Murphy Oil USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims brought by Sandra Kivell, so the plaintiff lost.
• Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Sandra Kivell's negligence and strict liability claims, so Union Carbide won and the plaintiff lost.
• Tallman v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, finding no evidence that Mr. Tallman was exposed to asbestos from a Foster Wheeler product, and also recommended judgment on the punitive damages claim.
• McCarthy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2017). The Superior Court denied the motions for summary judgment of Warren Pumps, Gardner Denver and General Electric, ruling that the decedent's pre-suit sworn statement was admissible and that plaintiff showed enough product identification to reach a jury.
• Shaw v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Union Carbide's unopposed motion for summary judgment against Ralph and Joan Shaw because Mr. Shaw did not identify a Union Carbide asbestos product.
• Harris v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted Deere & Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Deere against the plaintiff, because under North Carolina law the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond speculation that the asbestos-containing parts he worked on were made or sold by Deere.
• Denbow v. CBS Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for CBS Corporation/Westinghouse and Crane Co. against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, because she did not show Mr. Denbow was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Charlevoix v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America against plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Charlevoix, who did not oppose the motions, because there was no evidence of exposure to either defendant's asbestos-containing product.
• Reed v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Nosroc, County Insulation, Asbestos Corporation Limited, Charles Wagner Co. and Bayer CropScience, against the Reed plaintiffs.
• Pisano v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2016). The court denied Sears, Roebuck and Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the Pisano plaintiffs' claims against Sears go forward.
• Murray v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2016). The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction and no forfeiture of the defense, so the Murrays lost as to Dana.
• Hillyer v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Sarco and Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo Pumps), granting it for MSA, Copes-Vulcan and Crane only on punitive damages, and otherwise denying it so the Hillyers' claims against those three proceed.
• Denbow v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corporation and Georgia-Pacific against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, and dismissing them with prejudice, because plaintiff offered no product identification evidence and did not respond.
• Muse v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2014). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Honeywell International Inc. against James Muse and Clarice Roberts-Muse.
• Farrall v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2013). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, leaving in place its grant of summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on the failure to warn claim about asbestos-containing replacement parts.
• McCormick v. Burnham (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2013). The court granted the defendants' in limine motion in substance, ruling that Kansas law governs the McCormick claims, including comparative fault and $250,000 caps on non-economic damages, and ordered a verdict sheet and jury charge.
• Galliher v. R. T. Vanderbilt (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2012). The court allowed plaintiff's late-disclosed geologist (Fitzgerald) to testify, excluded plaintiff's other late expert (Dr. Rigler), continued the trial to July 16, 2012 so defendant R. T. Vanderbilt could develop rebuttal evidence, and sanctioned defendant's out-of-state counsel $5000.
• McCoy v. PolyVision Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2012). The court granted summary judgment to PolyVision Corp. against Janine and Marvin McCoy, predicting Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on an employer or premises owner to an employee's spouse for take-home asbestos exposure.
• Gordon v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted summary judgment to Dana (Victor gaskets) and UOP, and denied summary judgment to Elliott, Armstrong and Born, so the plaintiffs' claims against those three go forward.
• Clineff v. BP Amoco Chemical Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted summary judgment to BP Amoco Chemical Company, BP Corporation North America Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. because the plaintiffs' claims were filed after the two-year limitations period expired.
• Davis v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Wesley Davis, finding he had not shown Crane-supplied asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Foucha v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment against Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they could not show without speculation that Foucha was exposed to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific joint compound.
• Bowser v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Parker-Hannifin's summary judgment motion in part (strict liability count and helicopter brake exposures before 1967) and denied it as to the airplane brake claims, so Plaintiff Jenny Bowser's remaining claims proceed.
• Foucha v. CertainTeed Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted CertainTeed Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they lacked evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing CertainTeed product.
• Henderson v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' post-trial motion for costs against Dana and Zoom, awarding $14,597.12 in costs plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
• Newman v. Avocet Enterprises (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court denied Avocet Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on the Newmans' remaining claims, because Newman's testimony about using Ventbestos raised a factual dispute on causation, and found the motion moot as to the withdrawn conspiracy claim.
• James v. Albany Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Albany International's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Charlene James because there was no non-speculative evidence that Robert James was exposed to an asbestos-containing Albany product.
• Ashworth v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion on the survival action as time-barred, but denied it on the wrongful death claim, which was timely and had factual disputes on causation and product identification.
• Cruz v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not show under Texas law that exposure to its Ready Mix joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Cruz's mesothelioma.
• Olson v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants Crane Co. and CBS Corp. (Westinghouse) against plaintiffs, holding Idaho law would not make them liable for other manufacturers' asbestos-containing parts.
• Freeman v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs raised a genuine dispute of fact about whether Wilburn Freeman was exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing joint compound.