Asbestos Cases A–Z: K

143 decisions whose name begins with K.

• Kimball v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Elliott Company and ruled for Ernest Kimball, finding enough evidence of exposure and causation for a jury; it did not review the order striking evidence.
• Kimmons v. Autozone, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2022). The court granted the plaintiffs' voluntary dismissals of nine defendants and approved the stipulated dismissals, denied the pending motions to dismiss cross-claims and Morse TEC's summary judgment motion as moot, and held all remaining cross-claims moot; only the claims against Union Carbide remained.
• Kimmons v. Autozone, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2020). The district court granted Cyprus Mines' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against plaintiffs Kimmons and Swopes as to Cyprus Mines only; the case continued against the other defendants.
• King v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1990). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Celotex, including the 55% apportionment of causation and the punitive damages award, rejecting Celotex's challenges to three evidentiary rulings.
• King v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court granted defendant AMF Inc.'s motion to dismiss all 86 plaintiffs' cases for failing to file the medical reports required by Texas Chapter 90, ruling against the plaintiffs.
• King v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted Union Carbide's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Glen King's claims against it, because he could not link any asbestos exposure to a Union Carbide product.
• King v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Shreveport Rubber & Gasket Co.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Glen King's claims against it, because he could not show exposure to asbestos from its products.
• King v. Paul J. Krez Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 2001). The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for insulation contractors Krez and Brand, holding the widow's wrongful death claim was barred by the 10-year construction statute of repose.
• King v. Ridenour (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2010). The court granted Waters & Kraus, LLP's motion to dismiss in part and dismissed the plaintiffs' malpractice and contract claims against the firm for lack of personal jurisdiction, without ruling on the failure-to-state-a-claim argument.
• Kingston v. Lyon Construction, Inc. (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, which denied the employer and its insurer's motion to introduce newly discovered evidence and reduced their workers' compensation lien on the worker's third-party asbestos settlements to zero; the worker won.
• Kinseth v. Weil-McLain (Iowa Supreme Court, 2018). The Iowa Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Weil-McLain because the estate's lawyer prejudiced the jury in closing arguments, while upholding most of the trial court's rulings on the verdict form, evidence and punitive damages for use on retrial.
• Kinseth v. WEIL-McLAIN Company (Iowa Court of Appeals, 2017). The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict against Weil-McLain and remanded for a new trial because plaintiffs' counsel repeatedly violated limine rulings in closing argument, ordered McDonnell & Miller valves added to the verdict form, and affirmed on plaintiffs' cross-appeal.
• Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiffs Ray Kinsman and his wife against Unocal and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not instructed on the limits on a premises owner's liability to an independent contractor's employee.
• Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Unocal's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding substantial evidence of negligence, and remanded for a new trial under the Supreme Court's instructions; the Kinsmans prevailed on this issue.
• Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation (California Supreme Court, 2005). The California Supreme Court affirmed in part the Court of Appeal's reversal of the jury verdict for Ray Kinsman against Unocal and remanded for a new trial, because the jury was not properly instructed that Unocal was liable only for a concealed hazard; it disapproved the Court of Appeal's narrower control-based rule.
• Kirby v. David Fabricators OF NY, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2025). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of David Fabricators' motion to dismiss, so plaintiff Kirby's mesothelioma action against it continues.
• Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1995). The Third Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiff Sarah Kirk against Owens-Corning and remanded for a new trial on damages and liability, because the district court refused to strike two biased jurors for cause, impairing Owens-Corning's peremptory challenges; it also found hearsay errors but upheld delay damages in principle.
• Kirks v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2009). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand both cases to Delaware state court, holding that General Electric had established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Kirkwood v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2020). The court denied, without prejudice, the motions of Cyprus Mines and Cyprus Amax Minerals to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and allowed the plaintiff jurisdictional discovery, and it denied the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (Virginia Supreme Court, 2013). Answering a question certified by the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the executrix's mesothelioma wrongful death claim accrued at the earlier asbestosis diagnosis, not the mesothelioma diagnosis, which favored the defendants (two justices dissented).
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss because Plaintiff Phyllis Kiser's wrongful death claims over Orvin Kiser's mesothelioma were time-barred under Virginia's indivisible cause of action rule.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding the estate's wrongful death claim over Mr. Kiser's mesothelioma was time-barred under Virginia law, so Phyllis Kiser, as executor, lost.
• Kisor v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1986). The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Owens-Illinois and remanded for a new trial, ruling for Kisor's estate, because the district court wrongly admitted evidence of the manufacturer's knowledge and refused her instruction.
• Kite v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2011). The district court denied plaintiff Kite's motions for remand, holding that CBS properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, so the case stayed in federal court for the defendants; it granted the motion to expedite.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The court granted the unopposed motion by plaintiffs Paul and Julie Klick to remand the case to state court after Boeing, the federal-officer removing defendant, was dismissed, and denied Goodrich's proposed order dismissing crossclaims as moot.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2021). The court denied Abex's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice and ordered 45 days of limited jurisdictional discovery, followed by supplemental briefing, because the record was inadequate to decide.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2021). The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction over Boeing in New Jersey, denied jurisdictional discovery, and declined to transfer the claims, so Boeing won against the Klicks.
• Klinger v. Alderete (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion of Alderete and her attorneys, which defeated Klinger's malicious prosecution suit, and affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs to them.
• Klock v. Albany Intl. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Onondaga, 2017). The court denied the plaintiffs' joint motion to consolidate the McIntosh and Gaumes asbestos actions for a July 2017 trial, so the defendants, including Vanderbilt Minerals, prevailed on the motion.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion and dismissed all claims against it for lack of product-identification evidence, and granted plaintiff's motion holding Foster Wheeler waived its Dutch-law limitations defense.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court denied Honeywell's summary judgment motion on the Washington product liability claim, granted it on plaintiff's other broad claims (negligence, conspiracy, 402A/402B, premises, catch-all), and denied it without prejudice on the inadequately briefed admission and punitive damages issues.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion: the Washington product liability claim survived for trial, while the plaintiff's other claims (negligence, conspiracy, Restatement 402A/402B strict liability, premises liability) were dismissed.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court denied the plaintiff estate's two motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants' affirmative defenses of alternative asbestos exposure in the Dutch Merchant Marine and at Tektronix, so the defendants kept those defenses.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Crosby Valve's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crosby Valve from the case, ruling against the plaintiff estate.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion for sanctions against O'Reilly Automotive Stores, imposing a $1,000 sanction and ordering amended discovery responses, but refusing sanctions over the corporate representative's preparation.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Toyota Motor Corporation's and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.'s renewed motion for a protective order, and set the final form of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices the plaintiff estate could use.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The federal district court granted Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff did not show that the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing Ingersoll-Rand product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff estate did not show the decedent was exposed to an asbestos product attributable to Air & Liquid.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to Standard Motor Products and Parker-Hannifin and dismissed them from the case because the plaintiff could not show the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing EIS brakes they made or sold.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Henry Company LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that Henry made an asbestos-containing product the decedent used.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, ruling against the estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Standard Motor Products' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the decedent was exposed to an SMP product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court denied National Automotive Parts Association's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiff estate won this motion and the case against NAPA continues.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Viking Pump's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Viking from the case, against the plaintiffs, who offered no evidence connecting Viking to the decedent's mesothelioma.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion to compel, ordering O'Reilly to serve complete answers to the interrogatories and document requests by May 13, 2019, and declining to impose sanctions.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The district court denied O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against O'Reilly (Schuck's) go forward.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add DCo LLC as a defendant, over DCo's opposition.
• Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 1986). The court refused to rescind leave to amend, held Ann Knauer's wrongful death claim time-barred (granting defendants summary judgment on it), and denied dismissal of her survival claims for pre- and post-death damages.
• Knight v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court denied, without prejudice, the Knight family's motion to sever and remand and the intervenors' motion to remand or abstain, finding them premature and allowing further discovery and possible summary judgment motions; the Avondale defendants' removal stayed in place for now.
• Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1990). The court denied Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.'s summary judgment motion, so the estate of Darrel Knox, the plaintiff, could continue its asbestos suit against OCF.