Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The bankruptcy court granted debtor LTL Management's motion and preliminarily enjoined the securities class (SDCERA and the putative class) from continuing the securities action against J&J and non-debtor affiliates, with the stay to be revisited on June 29, 2022.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The bankruptcy court denied the motions by the Official Committee of Talc Claimants and Arnold & Itkin to dismiss LTL Management's chapter 11 case as a bad-faith filing, so the debtor (LTL) won and the talc claimants lost.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The bankruptcy court granted in part the motions of debtor LTL and the Arnold & Itkin law firm, struck the U.S. Trustee's Notice of Appointment of two talc claimant committees, disbanded those committees, and reinstated the original committee, over the U.S. Trustee's position.
• Horn v. A.W. Chesterson Co. (In re Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' main request to consolidate eight asbestos personal injury and wrongful death actions into three groups for successive joint trials, denied their alternative request for a six-case joint trial, and overruled the defendants' opposition.
• In re Mid-Valley, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2014). The bankruptcy court denied, without prejudice, NL Industries' motion to enforce the asbestos channeling injunction and for sanctions against Marilyn Judson. It interpreted the injunction as covering only the part of her claim tied to Baroid/Bentone exposure and left the rest to the Missouri state court.
• Rock v. Bucyrus Int'l (In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation) (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2009). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Bucyrus International's motion to quash a commission for presuit discovery, ruling for respondent Joyce Rock and against Bucyrus.
• In re Moorenovich (U.S. District Court, District of Maine, 1986). The district court denied the defendants' motion in limine and ruled that the asbestos plaintiffs could mention fear of cancer in opening statements and offer evidence of it at trial.
• In re Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2013). The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's orders denying Garlock access to the Rule 2019 exhibits, granting Garlock access subject to use limitations and holding that reopening closed cases and intervention were unnecessary.
• In re Nash Engineering Company (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2024). The court granted the Nash Holdings defendants' motion to dismiss the Bankruptcy Code section 548 claims (Counts II and III) with prejudice as untimely, and denied it as to the CUFTA fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment and subsequent-transfer claims, so the Trustee's remaining claims go forward.
• In re National Gypsum Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, 2000). The bankruptcy court denied the claimants' motion to cancel the alternate-facility hearings, adopted the alternate claims facility with modifications, and ruled that the channeling order would end unless New NGC deposited $144,581,078 with the trust by December 31, 2000.
• Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1994). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' post-trial motions after the jury awarded over $47 million to the Tabolt, Consorti, Luchnick and Pulizzi plaintiffs: it ordered a new trial on fault allocation in Tabolt and on Mrs. Consorti's future non-economic consortium damages, cut several consortium awards, and on reargument reduced Pulizzi's funeral-expense award to $2,925, but otherwise left the verdicts in place.
• Kreppein v. Owens-Illinois (In re New York Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 1990). The court granted Owens-Illinois' motion for reconsideration, held the widow's claims against it barred by collateral estoppel, and vacated the judgment as to it; it denied the JNOV, new trial and remittitur motions of U.S. Mineral, Eagle-Picher and Celotex, leaving the verdict against them in place.
• Koulermos v. Treadwell Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Treadwell Corporation's summary judgment motion to the extent it sought dismissal of co-defendant National Grid's cross-claims, and held the motion moot as to the plaintiffs' own claims, which they had withdrawn opposition to.
• Luca v. The Neslemur Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied defendant The Neslemur Company's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims against Neslemur continue.
• DeKlerk v. Estée Lauder (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied the motions of Estée Lauder Inc. and Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. to dismiss the action for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiffs' case stays in New York.
• Lamenta v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court granted American Biltrite's summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and all crossclaims against it, because the plaintiffs did not raise a fact issue on general or specific causation.
• Dohse v. Avon Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Avon Products, Inc.'s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs' action stays in New York.
• Vincent v. Baltimore Aircoil Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied Baltimore Aircoil Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Vincents' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on product identification.
• Luca v. Whittaker, Clark and Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied Whittaker, Clark and Daniels' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, and its alternative request to dismiss the punitive damages claim, so the plaintiffs' claims go forward.
• Luca v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied American International Industries' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, and its alternative motion to dismiss the punitive damages claims, so the plaintiffs (the Luca estate and widow) won.
• Eckrich v. ECR Int'l (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied ECR International's motion for summary judgment, so the Eckrich plaintiffs' claims against ECR go forward.
• Minassian v. Kolmar Laboratories (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied defendant Kolmar Laboratories' motion to reverse the Special Master's recommendation that its responses to plaintiffs' supplemental discovery were insufficient, and confirmed the recommendation, so plaintiffs prevailed.
• Graul v. Tecumseh Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Tecumseh Products Company LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severing and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Tecumseh; the plaintiffs lost as to Tecumseh.
• Montell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Kaiser Gypsum's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severed and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Conaway v. ABB (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied defendant ABB, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiffs (Glenda Conaway and the estate) prevailed on the motion.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Mineral (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). On renewal, the court vacated its earlier grant of summary judgment to Vanderbilt Mineral, denied Vanderbilt's summary judgment motion including on punitive damages, and denied its motion to change venue, so plaintiffs Stanley and Debby Peterson won and the case was restored to the trial calendar.
• English v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue and renew its July 2019 order dismissing the case against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction, and declined to consider plaintiffs' late supplementary letter and exhibits.
• Hardman v. Revlon (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, confirming that Revlon, Revlon Consumer Products and Bristol-Myers Squibb need not name their fact witnesses at this stage, and denied the defendants' cross-motion to transfer as moot.
• Germain v. The Neslemur Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims against Neslemur continue.
• Mauro v. John E. Potente & Sons (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court granted John E. Potente & Sons' motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the punitive damages claims (withdrawn by stipulation) and denied the rest, so plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against Potente remain.
• Mauro v. Kennedy Electrical Supply, Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Kennedy Electrical Supply Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, finding a fact issue on whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos products Kennedy sold to Con Ed.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Minerals (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC summary judgment dismissing the Petersons' claims and all cross-claims because plaintiffs' expert reports were not in admissible form, but denied its forum non conveniens dismissal request.
• Mauro v. Consolidated Edison of New York (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court denied Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Mauro plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding triable issues of fact on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence and § 241(6) claims.
• Slonim v. J & R Film Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted J&R Film Co. and Magnasync/Moviola Corporation's motion to renew only to the extent of ordering plaintiffs to provide a testing protocol, denied renewal and reversal otherwise, and kept the order for joint testing of defendants' Moviola machines, so plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Rivera v. Ericksson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Ericksson, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, which sought dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, because it did not make a prima facie showing on causation.
• Rivera v. Meriden Molded Plastic (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Meriden Molded Plastic Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against it continue.
• Jackson v. Henry Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Henry Company's motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against Henry go forward to trial.
• Rothlein v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only as to talc supplied to Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive (unopposed), and denied it as to talc supplied for Old Spice, Mennen and Clubman powders, so plaintiffs' claims on those products continue.
• Salzano v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Kaiser Gypsum Company's motion for summary judgment, so the executor's and Frances Salzano's claims against it proceed.
• Germain v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels summary judgment only on claims about talc sold to American International Industries, Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive, and denied it on claims about talc sold to Neslemur for Clubman talcum powder, so the plaintiffs' claims on that talc continue.
• Koenig v. Pneumo Abex (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The court granted Pneumo Abex LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Rivera v. General Electric Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment on workers' compensation exclusivity grounds and, alternatively, on punitive damages, so plaintiffs' claims against GE proceed.
• Lattanzio v. Rockwell Automation (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied Rockwell Automation, as successor to Allen-Bradley, summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, so plaintiffs Philip and Kathleen Lattanzio won the motion.
• Rothlein v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted American International Industries summary judgment only for decedent's alleged exposure to Clubman talc from 1982 through August 13, 1987, and denied the motion for the period from August 13, 1987 through 1995, including on punitive damages, so plaintiffs' remaining claims continue.
• Germain v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted American International Industries' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against it, ruling against the plaintiffs, the estate of Michelle Germain and her husband.
• Rosen v. Fisher Scientific Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court denied Fisher Scientific Company, LLC's motion for summary judgment (and its alternative request for a hearing on plaintiff's experts' methodology), so plaintiff Michael Rosen's claims against Fisher go forward.
• Nelson v. Holley Performance Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted Holley Performance Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severing and dismissing the Nelsons' complaint and cross-claims against Holley without prejudice, and denied the alternative request for a more definite statement as untimely.
• Alder v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate five mesothelioma cases into two trial groups, ordered all five tried individually, and set trial conferences for the living plaintiffs and placed the deceased plaintiffs' cases on the list.
• Slonim v. J & R Film Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted third-party plaintiffs J&R Film Co. and Magnasync/Moviola Corporation leave to amend their third-party complaint to add Johnson & Johnson entities as third-party defendants, rejecting J&J's res judicata, prejudice and severance arguments.
• Alleyne v. Chanel (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied plaintiff Beverley Alleyne's motion to compel Chanel, Inc. to produce its Chanel No. 5 fragrance formulas from 1924 to 2017 or, alternatively, to bar Chanel from challenging the authenticity of the samples her expert tested.