Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Martin Franchises, Inc. v. Cooper US, Inc. (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2016). The Appellate Court reversed summary judgment for Martin Franchises against Cooper U.S. and remanded with direction to deny Martin Franchises' motion, because the supporting affidavit was improperly accepted.
• Martin v. American Petrofina, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of Benjamin Foster's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (a win for Martin), but reversed the reduction by proportionate fault and remanded for judgment reduced by the settling defendants' pro rata shares (14/15), a win for Martin on the cross-appeal.
• Martin v. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2009). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for General Motors, Cincinnati Gas & Electric and General Electric, and the executor of Dennis Martin's estate lost on all claims.
• Martinez v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. (Delaware Superior Court, 2012). The court granted DuPont's motion to dismiss the Argentine widow's asbestos suit, holding that she sued the wrong party, failed to plead a viable direct claim, failed to join the indispensable Argentine subsidiary, and that forum non conveniens also required dismissal.
• Maryland Cas. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court (Montana Supreme Court, 2020). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Asbestos Claims Court's grant of summary judgment to Ralph Hutt on the duty element of his negligence claim against Maryland Casualty Company, on different reasoning, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Mason v. Mt. St. Joseph, Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the estate's claims against General Electric, holding they were not product liability civil actions and were therefore barred by Oregon's 10-year negligence statute of ultimate repose.
• Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v. Adkins (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2020). The court of appeals affirmed the MDL court's orders: it denied Massachusetts Bay's special appearance in the Adkins litigation, denied the Adkins and Able plaintiffs' motions to remand, and granted the other insurers' special appearances.
• Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v. Adkins (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2020). The court ordered the parties to file post-argument briefs on the proof needed to show a malignant mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancer diagnosis under section 90.010(a)(3), whether the MDL court must make a written finding, and the standard of review; it decided nothing else.
• Masters v. Graybar Electric Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted plaintiff Willard Masters III's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, holding that Graybar Electric had not shown plaintiff abandoned his claims against the non-diverse defendant Taylor-Seidenbach.
• Mata v. Liberty Utilities (park Water) Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's JNOV vacating the $5 million punitive damages award against Park Water, ruling for Park Water and against plaintiffs Alfred and Leticia Mata.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court denied Westinghouse's motion for partial summary judgment on its sophisticated user defense, so the failure-to-warn claims against it over Micarta remained for trial.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion and quashed the trial subpoenas that Plaintiffs and Defendants General Electric, Foster Wheeler and Paramount Global had directed to Avondale as a corporate entity.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' intentional tort, alter ego and manufacturer strict liability claims, ruling against the plaintiffs and Avondale.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment that Roseanna Matherne had mesothelioma and that it caused her death, over the defendants' off-topic oppositions.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claims that Avondale assumed its insolvent insurers' obligations under the buy-back agreements; the plaintiffs lost this claim.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, so Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its insurers could not use the government contractor defense against the failure-to-warn and failure-to-enact-safety-measures claims.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Huntington Ingalls: Huntington need not present a witness, but must give the plaintiffs its litigation listing of prior cases within 14 days.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied LIGA's motion for entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the earlier summary judgment in its favor, so LIGA must wait until the whole case ends to appeal; the plaintiffs prevailed on this motion.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted summary judgment for the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) and against the plaintiffs, holding that their claims were not timely 'covered claims' because they arose after the insolvent insurer's claim bar date.
• Matrana v. Avondale Indus., Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2001). The Fourth Circuit denied Avondale Industries' application for supervisory writs, leaving the lower court ruling in place for plaintiff Matrana.
• Matter of Adesso v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, ordering joint trials for Cerato/Lynch, McCormick/Munnelly, Kalachman/Rothman, Hickey/Litz, George/Toy, Hutnick/Soto and Hill/Lipari, and denied joinder for Swanson/Whitaker, Hiddie/Rose, Costa/Endelmann, Lehanka/Snider, Bascomb/Gallagher and for adding Scott to Hill and Lipari, over the defendants' opposition.
• Matter of Anne Lautenschuetz v. AP Greene Industries, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2008). The Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's order, reversing nunc pro tunc approval of all settlements except the April 2007 Amotex Trust settlement, so CNA Insurance largely won and the widow lost on the earlier settlements.
• DeMeyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig) (New York Supreme Court, Wayne, 2005). The court found DaimlerChrysler had made a prima facie showing against plaintiff's experts, declined to decide the motion on the papers, and ordered a pre-trial Frye hearing where plaintiff (the estate) bears the burden; DaimlerChrysler's summary judgment motion was held in abeyance.
• Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Monroe, 2003). The court denied the defendants' motions in limine to exclude workers' compensation and plant-condition evidence and the trade-association documents, but granted their motion to exclude Ralph Froehlich's deposition and affidavit as hearsay, so the ruling was split between plaintiff and defendants.
• Matter of Benson (New York Surrogate's Court, Albany, 2019). The Surrogate's Court denied Weitz & Luxenberg's motion to drop Robert Thomas Benson as a party, and ruled that he could proceed as co-administrator and petitioner against the law firm.
• Matter of Celotex Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, 1997). The bankruptcy court granted the excess insurers' Rule 52(c) motions, holding that Celotex and Carey Canada failed to prove timely and reasonable notice of asbestos bodily injury and property damage claims, so the insurers won and the debtors lost on this issue.
• Matter of Celotex Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, 1996). The bankruptcy court held that Celotex and Carey Canada (the debtor) established physical injury to tangible property in each of eight representative asbestos building cases, that the pollution exclusion, known-loss doctrine and expected-or-intended defenses did not bar coverage, and that the defendant insurers must provide Property Damage coverage as the court defined it.
• Matter of Celotex Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, 1994). The bankruptcy court granted the debtors Celotex and Carey Canada partial summary judgment, holding the policy term "asbestosis" and the phrase "asbestosis and related diseases arising out of asbestos products" unambiguous, and denied the insurer defendants' cross-motion.
• Matter of Claim OF Manocchio v. Abb Combustion Eng'g (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying the carrier for ABB Combustion Engineering's request to apportion liability among claimant Manocchio's prior employers, so ABB and its carrier lost.
• Matter of Compensation of Fossum (Oregon Supreme Court, 1982). The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Kaiser, the last shipbuilder employer, was solely liable and that the State Accident Insurance Fund was its responsible carrier, so the widow Helen Fossum won against SAIF.
• Matter of Conway v. Cbi Services, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision holding CBI Services and its carrier National Union liable on the widow's death benefits claim, rejecting their due process, evidence and settlement-consent arguments.
• Matter of Crist v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2015). The court granted Fisher Scientific's and VWR International's motions and dismissed the Crists' New York action on forum non conveniens grounds, on condition that defendants accept service of a new Michigan complaint and waive jurisdiction and limitations defenses.
• Matter of Crozier v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The trial court denied the motion by Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, so the Croziers' claims against them go forward in New York.
• Matter of Diegelman v. City of Buffalo (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2017). On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the order allowing claimants James R. Diegelman and others to serve a late notice of claim on the City of Buffalo and the other respondents, who lost the appeal.
• Matter of Drewes v. Steel (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Lumbermens had an enforceable lien and that the State Insurance Fund forfeited further reimbursement from Lumbermens by not obtaining its consent to the third-party settlements.
• Richards v. American Biltrite (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dis. Asbestos) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2020). The court denied American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim over the Amtico floor tiles goes to trial.
• Voelker v. John Crane (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2015). The court granted plaintiff Janet Voelker's motion, vacating the $250,000 pain and suffering award and ordering a new trial on that item unless defendants stipulate to $600,000, and denied John Crane's cross-motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2020). The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the order denying both Jenkins Bros.' and plaintiff Lynn Stock's post-trial motions, leaving the jury verdict for plaintiff in place.
• Chrabas v. Owens-Illinois (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2000). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Owens-Illinois's motion to apply Florida law to loss allocation issues and directing that New York law apply, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the choice-of-law question.
• Bille v. Hedman Resources (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Hedman Resources, Ltd.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2000). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Hedman Resources' motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiff Bille's mesothelioma action alive, and dismissed the appeal in Action No. 2 upon stipulation.
• Matter of Fischer v. American Biltrite, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted Burnham LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Fischer plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Burnham, because Mr. Fischer could not identify Burnham as the maker of the boiler or transite benches.
• Matter of Fossum (Oregon Supreme Court, 1980). The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held the widow's claim time-barred, and remanded so that court could decide whether the Workers' Compensation Board was right to find no causation; the widow prevailed on the timeliness question over the State Accident Insurance Fund and the insurers.
• Matter of Fossum (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1980). Affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of James Fossum's occupational disease claims and his widow's death benefit claims, which were time-barred, so the State Accident Insurance Fund and the other employers/insurers prevailed.
• Matter of Gimber v. Eastman Kodak Co. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2020). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying Eastman Kodak and its carrier's request to apportion the death benefits claim with prior employer International Paper.
• Matter of Johnson & Johnson v. Northwell Health Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's orders, granting Johnson & Johnson's petition to enforce the out-of-state subpoena against Northwell Health, and denying Dr. Moline's petition to quash while granting the cross-petition to enforce.
• Matter of Kirisits v. Durez Plastics/occidental (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision discharging the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability, so the employer and its carrier remained liable for the widow's death benefit claim.
• Matter of LA Gattuta v. Baldwin Ehret-Hill, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 1971). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Board's award, leaving Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier on the risk at the Rochdale site, liable for the death claim, and rejecting the appellants' challenge.
• Matter of Lucano (New York Surrogate's Court, Queens, 2024). The Surrogate's Court denied the executor's unopposed motion to redact or seal the terms of a wrongful death settlement in the petition and supporting papers, because he did not show good cause.
• Matter of Marzigliano v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court denied Mannington Mills, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation.
• Matter of Midland Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 1994). The court held that Midland's 1975-1976 excess policy is triggered only when an injured person was exposed to asbestos during the policy period, regardless of when first exposure occurred, rejecting LAQ's continuous-trigger argument that injury progression alone triggers coverage.