Asbestos Cases A–Z: K

143 decisions whose name begins with K.

• Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1988). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' summary judgment motion: CERCLA § 9658 did not preempt Indiana's statute of repose, so claims based on products delivered before 1973 were barred, but the plaintiff could still try to prove delivery and exposure from 1973 to 1985.
• Knutson v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, 2005). The federal district court granted Dennis Knutson's motion to remand the case to Nevada state court, finding the defendants did not prove fraudulent joinder of the Nevada defendants and that the removal was untimely; the removing defendants lost.
• Kochera v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The district court denied General Electric's motion in limine, joined by Owens-Illinois and John Crane, to exclude plaintiff Kochera's medical expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the plaintiff won the ruling.
• Kofler v. AW Chesteron (New York Supreme Court, 2009). The trial court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claim against Goodyear continues.
• Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1991). The court rejected most of Celotex's and Raymark's challenges but reversed the jury verdict for Lewis and Roberta Koker and remanded for a new trial because of an erroneous lost-chance-of-survival instruction.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assoc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corp.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability and the economic damages, but vacated the $7 million and $12 million pain and suffering awards and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff Konstantin accepts reductions to $4.5 million and $3.5 million.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corporation's motion for summary judgment, leaving David Konstantin's claims against it to proceed.
• Konstantin v. 640 Third Ave. Assoc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation's post-judgment motion to reopen discovery into plaintiff's claims against asbestos bankruptcy trusts, so the plaintiff estate kept the verdict as entered.
• Konstantin v. 640 Third Ave. Assoc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation's post-judgment motion to reopen discovery about plaintiff's claims to asbestos bankruptcy trusts, so plaintiff, the executrix of David Konstantin's estate, prevailed.
• Konstantin v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a declaratory judgment claim against all insurers and a tortious interference claim against Resolute, and denied the amendment to add a GBL § 349 claim against the Resolute Defendants.
• Konstantin v. Certain Underwriters AT Lloyd's London (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court denied Resolute Management's pre-answer motion to dismiss the tortious-interference claim brought by the executor of the Konstantin estate, and ordered Resolute to answer within 20 days.
• Koot v. Bwdac, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, 2024). The court granted plaintiff Koot's motion to remand to Nevada state court for lack of complete diversity, rejecting defendant Caterpillar's argument that Nevada-incorporated Meritor should be treated as a citizen of its parent's states.
• Kordestani v. ExxonMOBIL Oil Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' negligence claims against Exxon and remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed Exxon's cross-appeal on the choice-of-law ruling for lack of standing.
• Korol v. Aurora Pump Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Crane Company and Warren Pump Company, which had been entered against the decedent's estate, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Kotecki v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2009). The court denied the Koteckis' motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because Buffalo Pumps and General Electric showed a colorable federal officer (military contractor) defense.
• Kozak v. Guard-Line, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2008). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that removing defendant UOP failed to show Texas-citizen defendant Guard-Line was improperly joined, and sent the case back to the 116th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
• Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1990). The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the asbestos-product manufacturers on limitations grounds as to plaintiffs Kraciun, Kennedy, Snook, Lilly and Loehndorf, and remanded; it affirmed summary judgment against plaintiff Kenney.
• Kraemer v. Lone Star Industries (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted the Kraemers' motion to remand to King County Superior Court because Lone Star failed to show a colorable military contractor defense for federal officer removal, and awarded the Kraemers $1,000 in fees and costs.
• Kramer v. Amcord Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Kramer against Amcord, rejecting Amcord's claims that cross-examination of Kramer's experts was improperly limited and that the economic damages award lacked substantial evidence.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Northrop Grumman, ordering responses to most requests limited to three Navy radar products and denying requests aimed at Northrop Grumman's own workers and factories.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Lockheed Martin, ordering fuller answers to some interrogatories and document requests and refusing others.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Space Systems/Loral, ordering fuller interrogatory answers but denying the motion as to documents listed in SSL's Rule 26 disclosure and as to a request to rule on SSL's liability.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2018). The court denied Robert and Margaret Kraus's motion to remand, ruling that the removing defendants had raised a colorable federal government contractor defense and met the federal officer removal requirements.
• Krauss v. Trane US Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for General Electric, Georgia-Pacific, CBS/Westinghouse, Goulds Pumps, Zurn Industries and Trane (American Standard), and the executrix lost.
• Kreppein v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1992). The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment holding Celotex liable for 32.5% of the damages to Mary Kreppein, rejecting Celotex's challenges on product nexus, apportionment and the amended complaint, and denied plaintiff's request for sanctions.
• Krik v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court granted the defendants' motions (Crane, Owens-Illinois, Marley-Wylain and ExxonMobil) to bar plaintiff Krik's experts from offering "Any Exposure," "Each and Every Exposure" and "Single Fiber" causation opinions, and denied Mobil's other requests to bar the experts' testimony about exposure at Mobil facilities.
• Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2017). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil and Owens-Illinois after a jury found cigarettes were the sole cause of Krik's lung cancer, holding that excluding Dr. Frank's causation testimony and the Helsinki document was not an abuse of discretion and that the juror investigation did not prejudice Krik.
• Krivanek v. Fibreboard Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1993). The court affirmed the liability finding against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and the damages awards to Mr. Krivanek's estate and children, but reversed the denial of a new trial on Mrs. Krivanek's damages and remanded for retrial on her damages only.
• Kriz v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Rockland, 2021). The court granted the ten unopposed summary judgment motions of Eaton Hydraulics, Riley Power, Foster Wheeler, ViacomCBS, General Electric, Spence Engineering, GEA Mechanical, FMC, Velan Valve and Neles-Jamesbury, and denied the motions of Fisher Scientific and Armstrong International, so the plaintiff's claims against those two proceed.
• Krueger v. Csaa Insurance Services, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate District, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for CSAA Insurance Services because Krueger's suit on her homeowner's policy was filed after the one-year limitation period, and it treated her own summary judgment motion as moot.
• Krull v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1985). The court denied Celotex's motion for partial summary judgment on punitive damages, holding that Celotex, as the surviving corporation in a merger, assumed all of Panacon's liabilities, so Krull's estate could pursue punitive damages.
• Krumwiede v. Tremco, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2020). The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for the Krumwiede plaintiffs, holding Tremco was entitled to judgment n.o.v. because plaintiffs did not prove substantial-factor causation.
• Kruse v. Actuant Corporation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2020). The court denied plaintiffs George and Shigeko Kruse's motion to remand, finding federal officer removal jurisdiction proper based on Lockheed's and General Dynamics' colorable government contractor defense to the design defect claims.
• Kruse v. Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC (Alabama Supreme Court, 2015). The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for Vanderbilt Minerals and remanded, because the trial court ruled on a ground the motion never raised and the plaintiff had presented enough evidence of exposure to Vanderbilt's Nytal talc.
• Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Amchem's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against Amchem, because there was no evidence Krutz was exposed to Amchem's products or that they caused his mesothelioma.
• Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1991). The Second Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiff against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, because the revival statute's exception applied.
• Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2008). The court denied Viacom's summary judgment motion because genuine factual disputes remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward.
• Kurak v. AP Green Refractories Co. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1997). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against Owens-Illinois, holding it was entitled to judgment in its favor. It affirmed the finding of liability against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, but ordered a new trial on damages, or on liability and damages at the Kuraks' choice, because of an error in the jury instruction.
• Kurns v. AW Chesterton (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2009). The court granted summary judgment to Railroad Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp. against Mrs. Corson, holding her state-law tort claims preempted by the Boiler Inspection Act, and declined to follow the state court's earlier denial of summary judgment.
• Kurns v. AW Chesterton Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2010). The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Viad Corporation and Railroad Friction Products Corporation, holding the plaintiffs' state-law product liability claims preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
• Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit and the District Court's summary judgment for Railroad Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp, holding the Corson estate's state-law claims preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
• Kurns v. Soo Line RR (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2013). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Soo Line Railroad, holding that the executrix, Kurns, waived her challenges to the 2008 summary judgment order by not raising them in her earlier appeal to the Third Circuit.
• Kurrack v. American Dist. Telegraph Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 1993). The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for American District Telegraph Co. against plaintiff Jane Kurrack, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.