Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The court denied Bestwall LLC's motions to transfer the subpoena disputes to the North Carolina Bankruptcy Court and granted the asbestos trusts' motions to quash, without prejudice to Bestwall reissuing narrower subpoenas with added protections.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The district court held the bankruptcy court's order allowing Bestwall LLC to send personal injury questionnaires to mesothelioma claimants was not a final order, denied the asbestos claimants' committee leave to bring an interlocutory appeal, and affirmed the order.
• In re Bestwall LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2019). The bankruptcy court denied the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants' motion to dismiss Bestwall LLC's Chapter 11 case as a bad faith filing or to transfer venue to Delaware, so Bestwall prevailed.
• In re Bestwall, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of the claimants' and Maune Raichle's appeals from the bankruptcy court's contempt and sanctions orders, so Bestwall prevailed.
• Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1992). The Second Circuit affirmed the plaintiffs' verdicts on causation, failure to warn and the dismissal of the design defect claim, but reversed the prejudgment interest awards on survival-action and future damages. It set out a method for combining the settlement set-off with the cap on non-economic damages, remanded the question of aggregating set-offs, and remanded the Barone pain-and-suffering award for a new trial. It affirmed the defense verdict against Feldman.
• In re Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1997). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Owens-Illinois's motion to remand and its dismissal of the contribution action against Rapid American for lack of personal jurisdiction, so Rapid won and Owens-Illinois lost.
• In re Certified Question From the Fourteenth District Court OF Appeals OF Texas (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007). The Michigan Supreme Court answered a certified question from a Texas appeals court in the negative, holding that Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller, which favored Ford and went against the Miller plaintiffs' $9.5 million Texas verdict theory.
• In re Cfb Liquidating Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, 2017). The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee's motion and held Continental Casualty Company liable under Illinois Insurance Code §155, ordering it to pay its policy limits plus attorneys' fees, expenses, prejudgment interest and a $60,000 penalty.
• In re Cfb Liquidating Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, 2016). The court denied Continental Casualty's motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim, holding that the Trust's proposals with a 100% allocated percentage complied with Section 8.3 of the Plan and Continental had to respond, so the Trustee prevailed.
• In re Collins (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2000). The Third Circuit denied the petitioners' request for a writ of mandamus, leaving in place the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's decision to withhold remand of punitive damages claims, so the defendants prevailed.
• In re Combustion Engineering (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2003). The bankruptcy court approved Combustion Engineering's disclosure statement but withheld confirmation of its prepackaged plan until the debtor filed more information on notice to, and payment of, creditors with claims only against Lummus and Basic; it overruled the other objections, including the insurers'.
• In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2004). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order confirming Combustion Engineering's prepackaged Chapter 11 plan, vacated the § 105(a) injunction protecting Basic and Lummus, and remanded for further findings on the two-trust structure, with the insurers' appeals largely dismissed for lack of standing.
• In re Congoleum Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2009). The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Bankruptcy Court's denial of confirmation of Congoleum's plan, reversed the dismissal of the bankruptcy cases, and withdrew the reference; in a later opinion it denied the insurers' motion for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay.
• In re Congoleum Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2007). The bankruptcy court granted in part and denied in part the insurers' summary judgment motions, ruling the Debtors' Tenth Modified Joint Plan unconfirmable as a matter of law, in favor of the objecting insurers and against Congoleum and the asbestos claimants' committee.
• In re Congoleum Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2005). The Third Circuit reversed the order approving Congoleum's retention of Gilbert, Heintz & Randolph as special insurance counsel, siding with the objecting insurers, and remanded to the District Court.
• In re Congoleum Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2009). The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of confirmation as to the pre-petition payments to Arseneault, Cook and Comstock, affirmed it as to the missing court-approval provision for the $2 million in fees to claimants' counsel, reversed the dismissal of Congoleum's bankruptcy cases, and withdrew the reference.
• In re Dana Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2006). The bankruptcy court denied the Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants' motion to order the U.S. Trustee to appoint a separate official asbestos claimants committee in Dana Corp.'s Chapter 11 cases, siding with the Debtors, the U.S. Trustee and the creditors' committees.
• In re Davis (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit denied the asbestos workers' petition for a writ of certiorari to lift the Louisiana district court's stay, which enforced the Johns-Manville bankruptcy court's stay, and denied without prejudice their petition for a writ of prohibition against the contempt proceeding, so Manville and its insurers prevailed.
• In re Dbmp LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The bankruptcy court held that the automatic stay applies to asbestos claims against the non-debtor CertainTeed entities, denied the asbestos claimants' committee's motion to lift the stay, and alternatively granted DBMP a preliminary injunction, so the debtor and its affiliates won and the claimants' representatives lost.
• In re Duro Dyne National Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2019). The district court denied the U.S. Trustee's appeal and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order appointing Lawrence Fitzpatrick as future asbestos claimants' representative in Duro Dyne's bankruptcy, a win for Duro Dyne, the asbestos claimants' committee and Fitzpatrick.
• In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio, 1995). The bankruptcy court estimated Eagle-Picher's total asbestos personal injury liability at $2,502,511,000 as of the January 7, 1991 filing date, adopting Peterson's figure for open claims and Florence's discounted figure for future claims, and denied the Unsecured Creditors' Committee's motion for information gathering.
• In re EI DU Pont DE Nemours and Company (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 2015). The court of appeals conditionally granted DuPont's mandamus petition, holding the trial court abused its discretion by granting Whisnant's estate a new trial after the jury found for DuPont, and expecting the trial court to vacate that order and enter judgment on the verdict.
• In re EI DU Pont DE Nemours and Company (Texas Supreme Court, 2009). The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted DuPont's mandamus petition and directed the trial court to state its reasons for disregarding the jury verdict and granting Whisnant a new trial; it declined to review the new-trial grounds themselves.
• In re Eight Adversary Proceedings (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, 2019). The bankruptcy court denied Johnson & Johnson's motions to stay and granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand the eight removed talc cases to state court, assuming related-to jurisdiction but remanding on equitable grounds.
• Piepke v. Insulation Distributors (In re Eight Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2020). The trial court denied the motions of Insulation Distributors, Inc. and Niagara Insulations, Inc. for summary judgment, ruling for plaintiff, and deferred the punitive damages issue until after the liability and damages trial.
• Davis v. CompuDyne (In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2021). The court denied CompuDyne's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Jonathan and Loretta Davis, because CompuDyne's expert reports were inadmissible hearsay and, in any event, plaintiffs' experts raised triable fact issues on causation.
• Cavalieri v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2018). The court denied A.O. Smith Water Products Co.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Hockler v William Powell Co. did not bar the Cavalieris' claims, so plaintiffs Susan and Anthony Cavalieri prevailed on the motion.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2020). The bankruptcy court denied the motions of Denis and Meri Bergschneider and Kaye Heinzmann to file late asbestos proofs of claim, ruling for the reorganized Debtors and Sempra Energy.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2020). The Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Energy Future Holdings' plan, ruling against the latent asbestos claimants (appellants) and for the reorganized EFH debtors.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2015). The bankruptcy court granted the Debtors' Bar Date Motion and ruled that a bar date will be set for all prepetition claims, including unmanifested asbestos claims, over the objection of the asbestos personal injury law firms, which it found lacked standing.
• In re Estate OF Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2011). The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for plaintiff, holding that Abex and Honeywell were entitled to judgment n.o.v. because they owed no duty to the decedent; the defendants won and the estate lost.
• In re Estate OF Maldonado (Alaska Supreme Court, 2005). The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court's ruling that all the asbestos settlement proceeds were part of the augmented estate, which favored the surviving spouse Barbara Maldonado, and remanded to decide what part of the settlement, if any, paid survivorship claims, which may be included.
• In re Estate of McConnell (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2020). The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the county court's allocation of the Missouri asbestos settlement proceeds, which had gone entirely to the wrongful death claim (90% to the widow Wengert, 10% to the daughter Rajendran), and remanded for allocation to the estate's survival claim and for reapportionment of the wrongful death share; this favored the estate and daughter over the widow.
• In re Ethyl Corp. (Texas Supreme Court, 1998). The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, leaving in place the trial court's order setting twenty-two workers' asbestos premises claims for a single trial, so the defendants (Ethyl, USX, Todd Shipyards and Texas City Refining) lost and the plaintiffs won.
• In re Evans Products Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, 2009). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Van Brunts and denied JELD-WEN's request for a ruling that their asbestos claims were discharged by the 1986 Florida confirmation order.
• In re Fairbanks Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2019). The court appointed James L. Patton, Jr., nominated by the Debtor and Committee, as future claimants' representative, over the U.S. Trustee's objection and alternative nominees.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2012). The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's ruling that the Bankruptcy Code preempts the insurers' anti-assignment provisions, so Federal-Mogul could transfer its insurance rights to the asbestos trust over the insurers' objections.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2008). The bankruptcy court denied the Plan Supporters' request to approve the Plan A Settlement, finding that a Section 524(g) channeling injunction could not protect Cooper and Pneumo Abex, so the Plan B Settlement stood.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2005). The district court estimated Turner & Newall's pending and future asbestos personal injury and death liability at $9 billion in the United States and £229 million in the United Kingdom, mostly adopting the claimants' expert's method over the Property Damage Committee's lower estimate, and denied withdrawal of the reference for plan confirmation.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2010). The bankruptcy court granted Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products summary judgment, sustained their objection, and disallowed PepsiAmericas' claims 6093 and 6441 because PAS had no claim against the Debtors.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2005). The court estimated Turner & Newall's pending and future asbestos personal injury and death liability at $9 billion in the United States and £229 million in the United Kingdom, largely adopting the asbestos claimants' expert over the Property Damage Committee's expert.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2002). The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Court's denial of transfer and remand of the friction-product asbestos claims to state courts, and denied the automakers' and other defendants' requests for mandamus.
• In re Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1990). The Fifth Circuit granted the defendants' (Fibreboard, Pittsburgh Corning and ACandS) petitions for mandamus, vacated the district court's Phase II trial order for 3,031 asbestos cases, and remanded, while allowing Phase I to proceed.
• In re Flintkote Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited's objections, confirmed Flintkote's amended joint plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust, and recommended that the District Court affirm confirmation and the § 524(g) injunction.
• In re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 2006). The court of appeals denied the Fluor Defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion, leaving in place the MDL pretrial court's order remanding the case to the Travis County trial court; the plaintiffs prevailed.
• In re Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2019). The bankruptcy court granted Forrest Lewis, Jr.'s motion to remand, permissively abstaining and sending his suit against Trinity Industries back to the Louisiana state court after Trinity removed it.
• In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2017). The district court confirmed the modified joint Chapter 11 plan for Garlock Sealing Technologies, Garrison, Anchor and OldCo (successor to Coltec), adopted the bankruptcy court's findings, overruled Travelers' objection, and issued the asbestos channeling injunction, with the plan proponents prevailing.
• In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2014). The bankruptcy court estimated Garlock's aggregate liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125 million, adopting Garlock's legal-liability approach and rejecting the $1-1.3 billion settlement-history estimates of the Asbestos Claimants Committee and Future Claimants Representative.
• In re Geier (Delaware Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Douglas Geier's mesothelioma suit for forum non conveniens, finding they had not shown overwhelming hardship, and set a later hearing on costs under Rule 41(d).
• In re GI Holdings, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2016). The bankruptcy court granted G-I Holdings' summary judgment motion and dismissed the New York City Housing Authority's indemnity and restitution claims, and denied the Housing Authority's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability.