Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• Assenzio v. Burnham (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Burnham's and Cleaver-Brooks' motions to set aside the five mesothelioma verdicts for the plaintiffs, but found every damages award excessive and ordered new damages trials unless each plaintiff accepts a reduced award.
• Hackshaw v. Crane Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and set aside the verdict only to order new trials on damages for Hackshaw's past and Sweberg's future pain and suffering unless the plaintiffs accept reductions to $6 million and $5 million.
• Hockler v. The William Powell Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Bryan Hockler's complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim goes forward.
• Abrams v. Foster Wheeler (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Bova, Futia, Gay and McGinnity actions for a joint trial and ordering the Obremski and Abrams actions tried separately.
• Ballard v. Anchor Packing Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The trial court partly granted the plaintiffs' motion to join twelve asbestos cases for trial, ordering two joint trials: nine mesothelioma cases first, then three lung cancer cases.
• Early v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2008). The court granted the plaintiffs' alternative request for joint trials, ordering three groups of cases tried together (Early, Peterson and Wilson; Toner and Zajack; Bauer, Curto, Garland and Turco) over the defendants' objections.
• Holdampf v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating plaintiffs' negligence claim against the Port Authority, which had won summary judgment below, and remanded for further proceedings; the rest of the order was affirmed.
• Auletta v. Crane Co (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation Cluster) (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, ordering one joint trial of the four Navy/shipyard cases and another of six other cases, with the remaining cases in the cluster to be tried individually, rather than one trial of all ten cases the plaintiffs wanted; the defendants' opposition to joint trials failed except as to size.
• In re New York City Asbestos Litigation v. AC & S., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Flynn, McNamara and Troiano cases for one joint trial and the Browne, Buschi, Cozzocrea and Mauro cases for a later joint trial, over the defendants' objections, while ordering the Dalton and Zeitler cases tried separately.
• In re New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Certainteed Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate 17 asbestos actions into groups for joint trial, except that it split the proposed Group 1 into two groups (1(a) and 1(b)); the defendants' prejudice objections were rejected.
• Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part: Altman and Hofstetter were to be tried together, Barber, Egri and Moynihan were to be tried together, and DeStefano, Fox, Baginski and Evans were to be tried separately.
• In re Paddock Enterprises, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2022). The court denied Paddock's and the O-I Trust parties' motions to quash the North Carolina debtors' subpoenas for claims database information, but ruled that Paddock may recover its reasonable expense of responding; the question of ballot discoverability was left for further submissions.
• In re Patenaude (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2000). The Third Circuit denied the asbestos plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to remand their cases from MDL 875, so the defendants prevailed and the cases stayed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2013). The bankruptcy court confirmed Pittsburgh Corning's Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization and issued the §524(g) asbestos channeling injunction, overruling the objections of insurer Mt. McKinley and Garlock Sealing Technologies.
• In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2013). The bankruptcy court confirmed Pittsburgh Corning's Modified Third Amended Plan, issued the §524(g) asbestos channeling injunction, and overruled the objections of Garlock Sealing Technologies and Mt. McKinley Insurance/Everest Reinsurance.
• In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the Debtor's Modified Third Amended Plan because the channeling injunction was over-inclusive and the insurance neutrality language was ambiguous. It rejected Garlock's objections and Mt. McKinley's good-faith and TDP objections, and allowed the Plan Proponents to file an amended plan.
• In re Placid Oil Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2014). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Placid Oil, holding the Williams family's pre-confirmation claims over Mrs. Williams's asbestos-related death were discharged in Placid's bankruptcy; the Williams family lost.
• In re Placid Oil Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, 2012). The bankruptcy court granted Placid Oil Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Williams family's asbestos tort claims were discharged by the 1988 confirmation order, and denied the family's cross-motion.
• In re Placid Oil Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, 2011). The bankruptcy court granted Placid Oil Company's summary judgment motion, held that the Williams family's survival and wrongful death claims were discharged by Placid's 1988 Chapter 11 confirmation order, and denied the family's cross-motion.
• In re Prudential Lines, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1996). On remand from the district court, the bankruptcy court held that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve the ambiguity in "occurrence", so the term meant the general presence of asbestos on each PLI vessel in each triggered policy period. American Club could apply only one deductible per policy, a win for the Trustee and the asbestosis claimants.
• In re Prudential Lines, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1992). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Asbestosis Claimants and Trustee on deductibles, the Plan's "Liman" provision and post-petition interest, granted partial summary judgment to American Club on setoff, and denied summary judgment on allocation of coverage.
• In re Quigley Co. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2006). The bankruptcy court estimated asbestos personal injury claims for voting by disease-based Trust Distribution Procedure values and discounted the votes of claimants who settled with Pfizer by 90%, so Class 4 rejected Quigley's plan, a loss for Quigley and Pfizer and a win for the Ad Hoc Committee of non-settling claimants.
• In re Quigley Co., Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2008). The bankruptcy court overruled the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims' objection to Quigley's ballot, holding that claimants in the tort reform states hold bankruptcy "claims" and may vote without supplying the additional information the Committee requested.
• In re Quigley Co., Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2007). The bankruptcy court approved Quigley's disclosure statement, holding that placing settling and non-settling asbestos claimants in one class did not make the plan unconfirmable as a matter of law, and rejecting the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims' objection on that point while leaving other confirmation issues for an evidentiary hearing.
• In re Quigley Co., Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2007). The bankruptcy court ruled that the three mesothelioma claimants, who were not parties to the adversary proceeding, could seek relief from the preliminary injunction protecting Pfizer. It did not grant relief and set a status conference and possible evidentiary hearing; Quigley and Pfizer's opposition was not yet resolved.
• In re Quigley Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2011). The district court reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held that the Law Offices of Peter A. Angelos could pursue its Pennsylvania § 400 apparent-manufacturer claims against Pfizer, because the claims were outside the amended channeling injunction.
• In re Quigley Company, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2010). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Quigley's Fourth Plan, which the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims and the U.S. Trustee had opposed. It also granted in part Quigley's motion to exclude parts of Dr. Shaked's expert evidence, denied the motion to seal the Pfizer settlement information, and overruled the U.S. Trustee's objection to the Street Employment Motion.
• In re RailWORKS Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland, 2020). The bankruptcy court granted L.K. Comstock's motion for summary judgment and denied the Reibie Defendants' cross-motion (except on sanctions, which it deferred), holding the Reibies' asbestos claims against Comstock were discharged in its chapter 11 case.
• In re RailWORKS Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland, 2020). The bankruptcy court granted L.K. Comstock's motion for summary judgment and denied the Reibie Defendants' cross-motion (except on sanctions, which it deferred), holding their asbestos claims were discharged by the 2002 chapter 11 plan.
• In re Reed (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2016). The court held that a Texas state court's dismissal of Reed's earlier pre-suit petition did not bar her federal Rule 27 petition and that Rule 27 does not require personal jurisdiction over the respondents, but it did not yet grant the deposition and ordered Reed to submit medical evidence under seal.
• In re Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC (Delaware Court of Chancery, 2023). After a paper-record trial, the Court of Chancery held that petitioner Linda Cook showed good cause to appoint a receiver for the cancelled gasket company Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC over its objection, deferred ruling on nullifying the certificate of cancellation, and ordered that she bear any unpaid receiver fees.
• In re Roc (Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District, 2004). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgments for all defendants and against the plaintiff workers and their family members, who had alleged asbestosis or silicosis from paints and coatings at two nuclear power plants.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 2004). The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad, which favored the defendants over the plaintiff parents.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2003). The court of appeals granted Sears' mandamus petition and directed the trial court to vacate its April 1 and May 12, 2003 discovery orders, which were overbroad, against the Fuerstenau plaintiffs.
• In re Specialty Products Holding Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2013). The bankruptcy court rejected the Debtors' expert's low estimate, adopted the estimates of the Asbestos Creditors' Committee and Future Claimants' Representative experts, and set Debtors' present and future mesothelioma liability at $1.1 billion net present value, or $1.166 billion for all asbestos injury claims.
• In re Temple (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 1988). The Eleventh Circuit granted the petitioning plaintiffs' mandamus petition and directed the district court to vacate its order certifying a mandatory class against Raymark Industries and staying all related litigation.
• In re the Flintkote Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada's objections, confirmed the Flintkote and Flintkote Mines reorganization plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust injunction, and recommended that the District Court affirm, so the plan proponents (the Debtors, the asbestos claimants' committee and the future claimants' representative) prevailed over ITCAN.
• Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Toy Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The district court granted Armstrong International's motion for summary judgment on all claims by Agnes Toy and Thomas Toy, Jr., and directed entry of judgment for Armstrong.
• Toy v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Honeywell's motion to modify the scheduling order: Honeywell could not supplement its expert Dr. Vachani's report, but Plaintiffs could depose him after the deadline.
• Toy v. Viking Pump (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The district court denied, without prejudice to renewal after discovery, Viking Pump's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the Toys made a prima facie case of specific jurisdiction.
• In re United Refining Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, 2021). The bankruptcy court granted United Refining's motion, ruling that the Estate of Gerald Dorrion's wrongful death claim was a prepetition claim discharged by the 1988 Confirmation Order and enjoining the Estate from pursuing it.
• In re Unr Industries, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1987). The bankruptcy court denied debtor UNR's motion to order the Legal Representative for future asbestos claimants to represent Alban and Anderson, so UNR lost and the Legal Representative and the claimants' committee prevailed.
• In re Unr Industries, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1985). The bankruptcy court denied widow Frances Close's request for relief from the automatic stay, so she could not pursue her wrongful death suit against the UNR debtors outside the bankruptcy case.
• In re Unr Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1983). The district court denied the debtors' (UNR Industries and affiliates) application to appoint a legal representative for unknown future asbestos claimants, and also denied Peter John Robinson's motion to intervene.
• In re Usg Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2003). The bankruptcy court declined to adopt USG's proposal for a merits-based estimation of all roughly 190,000 asbestos claims and instead ordered a cancer-only claims bar date and claim form, with an estimation hearing afterward at which USG may present its defenses.
• In re Viking Pump, Inc. (Delaware Supreme Court, 2016). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the assignments of Houdaille's excess insurance rights to Viking and Warren, the exhaustion of the Liberty primary policies, and part of the defense-cost rulings. It reversed other defense-cost rulings and the Superior Court's trigger-of-coverage language, so the result favored Viking and Warren on most points but not all.
• In re Waterman SS Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1996). After remand, the bankruptcy court sided with the claimants on the operative date (the earlier claims bar date, not the confirmation date Waterman wanted) and with Waterman Steamship on burden of proof, joinder of all 3,500 claimants and wrongful-death accrual; it found the medical evidence too thin to decide most claims, reopened discovery, and ruled on 15 individual claimants.
• In re Waterman SS Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1993). The district court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's judgment for the asbestosis claimants (seamen) against Waterman Steamship and remanded for further findings on whether notice of the bar date was adequate to individual seamen who had shown symptoms.
• In re Waterman SS Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1992). The bankruptcy court granted the Asbestosis Claimants' summary judgment motion, holding their claims were pre-petition claims but were not discharged by Waterman Steamship's confirmation order because Waterman failed to give known creditors adequate notice.
• Darden v. Western Asbestos Settlement Trust (In re Western Asbestos Co.) (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The bankruptcy court granted the Dardens' motion in part, declaring that Edward Darden's 1986 release did not bar their wrongful death claims, and granted the Western Asbestos Settlement Trust's motion, declaring that the Trust documents do not let it pay those claims.