Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2009). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court concluded that, despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (Delaware Superior Court, 2006). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs' experts on general causation, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify that automotive friction products increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1998). The court said it would treat the 2,546 "closed" asbestos cases as fully resolved and terminate them on its docket unless plaintiffs, by June 26, 1998, identified at least 150 suitable for remand and said whether they would seek remand.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1998). On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Amchem, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the district court's judgment approving the Fibreboard class action settlements, rejecting the objecting appellants' challenge; one judge dissented.
• Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997). The court denied Raymark's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial and amendment of the judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions, except that it set aside the McPadden award for loss of parental consortium.
• Conway v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997). The court denied Raymark Industries' motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the asbestos actions of McPadden, Ciletti and Strafford, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1987). The Third Circuit answered the certified question in the negative, holding that New Jersey's bar on the state-of-the-art defense for asbestos manufacturers does not violate equal protection or due process, which was a loss for the manufacturers (Raymark, Owens-Illinois, GM and others) and a win for the plaintiffs.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Charlevoix v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to CBS/Westinghouse, Goodyear, FMC/Northern Pump and Ingersoll Rand because the unopposed motions showed plaintiffs had no evidence of exposure to those defendants' products.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Evans v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• Hillyer v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation Hillyer) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to ABB, CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union Carbide and Gould against the Hillyers, who did not oppose the motions.
• Hudson v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation Hudson Trial Group) (Delaware Superior Court, 2006). The court granted Delmarva Power & Light summary judgment on Hudson's claim for exposure at its Edgemoor plant and denied it for the Delaware City plant because the record on control was undeveloped.
• Farrall v. Atlas Turner (In re Asbestos Litigation Limited TO Farrall) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court granted Atlas Turner, Inc.'s and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.'s motions to dismiss, holding the 1982 release barred James Farrall's new mesothelioma claims; the plaintiffs lost.
• Phillips v. Hoffman/New Yorker (In re Asbestos Litigation Phillips) (Delaware Superior Court, 2013). The court denied Hoffman/New Yorker's motion for summary judgment, holding Virginia law can impose a duty for asbestos in third-party replacement pads and that the record on whether Phillips was exposed to asbestos pads was too unclear to resolve; Plaintiff Phillips prevailed on the motion.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Sturgill v. 3M Company, Inc. (Delaware Superior Court, 2017). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Larry and Jill Sturgill because the record did not show Mr. Sturgill was exposed to Union Carbide's asbestos in the joint compounds he used.
• In re Asbestos Litigation v. Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2009). The district court granted the Seitz plaintiffs' motions to remand to Delaware Superior Court, rejecting Bell Helicopter's and Northrop Grumman's federal officer removal because they showed no colorable federal defense.
• Hassell v. The Budd Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2016). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of Peggy Hassell's claims against Budd and Resco on Locomotive Inspection Act preemption grounds and remanded, so Hassell prevailed on appeal.
• Graver v. Allentown Cement Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the Gravers' motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, rejecting removing defendant Allentown Cement Company's claim of diversity jurisdiction, and denied the Gravers' request for costs and sanctions.
• Traser v. Sea Land Services (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2020). The Third Circuit dismissed the Estate of William Traser's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, because the district court's 2010 dismissal of the Michigan case was valid and unappealed, leaving the shipowners (Delta, Ogden Marine, Zapata, Sea Land and others) as the winners.
• Devries v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2017). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturers on the widows' strict liability claims because they waived those arguments on appeal, vacated summary judgment on the negligence claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Ney v. Owens-Illinois (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2016). The district court denied William Ney's motion to remand to Philadelphia state court, finding he joined non-diverse defendant Crown, Cork & Seal in bad faith to block removal, so Owens-Illinois's late removal was timely and stood.
• Crawford v. Alcoa (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2014). The Third Circuit affirmed the MDL court's dismissal with prejudice of Angie Smiddy's wrongful death complaint against Alcoa for failing to comply with Administrative Order 12, so Alcoa prevailed and Smiddy lost.
• Pavlick v. AM General (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2014). The court granted AM General's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff Olga Pavlick offered no evidence that her husband worked on trucks made by AM General.
• Schott v. Viad Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2014). The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and granted summary judgment for Viad Corporation on all claims because the plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos parts made or supplied by Griscom-Russell.
• Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2013). The magistrate judge denied Lockheed Martin's motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing, found that plaintiffs' counsel violated Rule 4.2 but refused to disqualify him, awarded Lockheed $10,000 in partial fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for sanctions.
• Thurmon v. Scapa Waycross (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The magistrate judge granted Scapa Waycross, Honeywell International and Warren Pumps' motions to quash plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) corporate deposition notices, denied plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery and their motion to compel Scapa documents (reserving the request under Rule 56(d)), and deferred Scapa's Rule 11 sanctions motion.
• Vest v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the Vests' motion to remand to California state court, holding that McDonnell Douglas Corporation's removal under the federal officer removal statute was untimely.
• Anderson v. Salmon Bay and Gravel Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court refused to preclude plaintiffs' pathologist Dr. Hammar's "every exposure" opinion, finding it reliable enough under Rule 702 and leaving the defendant's objections to cross-examination, so Salmon Bay's motion failed as to him; it found Dr. Brodkin had not offered that opinion and could not evaluate Dr. Brody for lack of record materials.
• Taylor v. Alcatel Lucent USA (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The magistrate judge denied Lucent's motion to deem its requests for admissions admitted, sustained the plaintiffs' objections and found their answers sufficient, and granted the plaintiffs leave to supplement the record with supplemental expert declarations.
• Larson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court denied all four defense summary judgment motions: Bondex's without prejudice because of its bankruptcy, Georgia-Pacific's causation motion because the plaintiff's expert testimony had been ruled admissible, and the product identification motions of Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide on the merits, so plaintiff Dianna Larson's claims go forward.
• Travis v. Globe Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled the plaintiff's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment to Globe Manufacturing Co. and against plaintiff Travis.
• Travis v. United Gilsonite Laboratories (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The district court overruled the plaintiff's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment to United Gilsonite Laboratories because there was no evidence Mr. Travis worked with its joint compound.
• Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The district court overruled both Georgia Pacific's objections and the plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate judge's ruling, so the magistrate judge's denial of both sides' motions to exclude expert testimony stood.
• Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify.
• Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff Barbara Anderson's motion for leave to amend her complaint, because the new workplace-exposure claims did not relate back to the initial complaint and would be time-barred, so the amendment was futile; defendants Bondex, Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide prevailed.
• Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The court denied the motions in limine by Bondex, RPM, Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide to exclude evidence of plaintiff Anderson's exposure to joint compound dust during sanding and cleanup, holding the Virginia statute of repose did not bar it.
• In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The court denied the motions to quash filed by the doctors and plaintiffs, and granted the defendants' motions to compel in part, enforcing the subpoenas only as to documents about diagnoses relied on by plaintiffs in MDL 875.
• Stevens v. CBS Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. V)) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2014). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CBS Corporation and International Paper against the executor of Raymond Stevens's estate, because Stevens's inconsistent testimony did not show the Micarta panels contained asbestos.
• Herman v. Ametek (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2017). The court granted plaintiffs Maynard and Irene Herman's motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, finding defendants had not shown that the joinder of Ametek was fraudulent.
• Williams v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2014). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Georgia-Pacific, ruling that Baxley had not produced enough evidence that Williams was exposed to an asbestos-containing Georgia-Pacific product.
• Rabovsky v. Goulds Pumps (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The court denied the motions of Goulds Pumps, Crane Co. and the defendants who joined them to exclude the plaintiffs' experts' "each and every exposure" causation testimony, so the plaintiffs, Valent and Ann Rabovsky, may present it.
• Wingfield v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the Moving Defendants' motion (John Crane, Warren Pumps, General Electric, Georgia-Pacific and Crane Co.) to exclude Emmett Wingfield's videotaped deposition, a ruling against the plaintiff.
• Cardaro v. General Electric Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (VI)) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2013). The court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding the Louisiana statute of repose did not bar the Cardaros' failure-to-warn claims and that a fact question remained, so the Cardaros prevailed on the motion.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asebestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding any error in the partial summary judgment on third-party replacement brake parts was harmless because the jury found Ford not negligent.
• In re Babcock & Wilcox Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2002). After trial, the court held that the Asbestos Claimants' Committee and the Future Claimants' Representative failed to prove Babcock & Wilcox was insolvent on July 1, 1998, so the defendants prevailed on the bifurcated solvency issue.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's preliminary injunction that barred asbestos claims against non-debtor New GP, ruling for Bestwall and Georgia-Pacific and against the Asbestos Claimants Committee and the Future Claimants' Representative.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2022). The district court granted Bestwall LLC's amended motion to dismiss and dismissed the asbestos claimants' appeal of the bankruptcy court's contempt and sanctions orders, because those orders are interlocutory and not immediately appealable.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2022). The court granted Bestwall LLC's motion, holding that Dr. Loomis could not claw back the data file he produced and must answer deposition questions about it, so Loomis and the claimants' association lost.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The district court denied the Future Claimants' Representative's request for leave to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's PIQ Order and dismissed the appeal, ruling the order was not final; Bestwall LLC prevailed.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The district court granted in part and denied in part the Asbestos Claimants' Committee's motion for rehearing, declined to hear the merits of its appeal of the PIQ Order, and dismissed the appeal, so Bestwall LLC prevailed on jurisdiction while the committee may appeal later with a final order.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The bankruptcy court held the Illinois Claimants (except Wilda Carden) and the Maune Raichle law firm in civil contempt of the PIQ Order for suing Bestwall in Illinois, found no automatic stay violation, declined to hold The Gori Law Firm in contempt, and gave the contemnors a chance to purge by dismissing the Illinois suit.