Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2015). The court granted SB Decking's renewed motion for summary judgment, ruling that maritime law applied and that the McMann plaintiff failed to show exposure to SB Decking's asbestos-containing product or that it was a substantial factor in causing his illness.
• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Pabst, finding the McManns' claims barred by Washington's Industrial Insurance Act. It granted Crane's motion except as to exposure to Crane's "Cranite" product, and granted SB Decking's motion on the conspiracy-type claims but denied it on the asbestos exposure claims.
• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The court granted PacifiCorp's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the McManns' claims against PacifiCorp, finding no genuine issue of fact that Mr. McMann was exposed to asbestos at the Centralia Steam Plant.
• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2013). The court granted the McManns' motion to remand to state court, holding that Crane Co. failed to show it was entitled to federal officer removal.
• McMaster v. Union Carbide Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The appeals court granted the writ of Union Carbide and Montello and modified the trial court's denial of their motion to quash, so that plaintiff McMaster must identify specific topics for the corporate witnesses, while otherwise upholding the trial subpoenas.
• McNamara v. Ico Polymers North America, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 2nd Division, 2023). The appellate court reversed the denial of plaintiffs' new-trial motion because requiring a witness to testify in person was an abuse of discretion, remanded for a new trial, and affirmed exclusion of the decedent's pre-suit evidence deposition, so plaintiffs won in part and ICO Polymers won in part.
• McNeil v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1996). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order to the extent it allowed a new trial on the lung cancer claim (a win for Owens Corning), and affirmed a new trial limited to the McNeils' non-cancer injury claims (a win for the McNeils).
• McPhee v. Ford Motor Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ford Motor Company, rejecting Marvin McPhee's claim over his wife Elaine's fatal mesothelioma because his medical expert's declaration contradicted his deposition and was too conclusory to show causation.
• McWilliams v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied Jenkins Bros.' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial or remittitur of the $35,000,000 verdict for plaintiff McWilliams, and granted plaintiff's cross-motion, sanctioning Jenkins' counsel Clyde & Co. US LLP $10,000.
• Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1985). The en banc court (by a 4-4 tie) left the revised panel opinion standing, which reversed summary judgment for the defendants and remanded, and certified a question on the borrowing statute to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The district court denied Fisher Scientific's motion for summary judgment, so the Mehnerts' negligence and loss of consortium claims against Fisher go forward to a jury.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2018). The district court denied the Mehnerts' motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, finding the defendants' removal timely, so the defendants prevailed on the motion.
• Meissner v. Ridge Constr. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division vacated the judgment against Lloyd's, and modified the order by denying the Meissners' motion and renewed motion for summary judgment, because fact issues remained on timely notice and on when injury-in-fact occurred; it held the primary policy was exhausted and the loss was a covered occurrence.
• Melancon v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2018). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to Louisiana state court, ruling against Huntington Ingalls and the other defendants and for the Melancons.
• Melancon v. Lamorak Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The court granted the Melancon family's motion to remand the case to state court, rejecting Huntington Ingalls' and the other defendants' federal officer removal.
• Melendrez v. Ameron International Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ameron International Corporation, holding the workers' compensation exclusive remedy barred the Melendrez family's wrongful death suit, and affirmed the $80,719 expert fee award to Ameron under section 998.
• Melendrez v. Superior Court OF State OF California (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs' writ petition, directing the trial court to vacate its orders deeming SECO's discovery responses verified and to determine who holds SECO's attorney-client privilege, so SECO loses on the verification issue and the matter is remanded.
• Melford v. Abex Corporation (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court denied the Melfords' motion to stay their Rhode Island asbestos case in favor of a later-filed Louisiana case, so the case stays in Rhode Island against Mack Trucks and the other defendants.
• Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1991). The Appellate Division modified the Bronx County order on plaintiff's appeal, partly reinstating plaintiff's discovery requests 8 and 9 against Xerox (narrowed) and otherwise affirming the vacatur of request 7.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 1989). The court denied the summary judgment motions of defendants Celotex and Fibreboard, which argued the wrongful death action was barred by Kansas's ten-year provision, so plaintiff Mary Menne's claim could proceed.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1988). The Tenth Circuit remanded for a new trial after a $2.5 million jury verdict for Menne's estate against Celotex, Eagle-Picher and Fibreboard, because the causation and state-of-the-art jury instructions were flawed.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 1986). The court overruled the post-trial motions (JNOV, new trial, remittitur) of Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Fibreboard and Raymark, leaving in place the $2,500,000 jury verdict for plaintiff Menne, and explained that Nebraska law would adopt alternative liability.
• Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corporation (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2012). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of judgment n.o.v. and the jury verdict for Menssen, ruling that Abex and Honeywell were entitled to judgment because the evidence did not prove they conspired to suppress or misrepresent asbestos hazards.
• Meredith v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court granted the supervisory writs, reversed the denial of summary judgment for Todd and its insurers on the wrongful death actions and dismissed them, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Meredith survival action, which was remanded.
• Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Richard Merrill against Leslie Controls and affirmed summary judgment for Elliott Company and summary adjudication for Leslie Controls on Tamara Merrill's loss of consortium claim.
• Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Richard Merrill against Leslie Controls and affirmed the summary judgment for Elliott Company and the summary adjudication of Tamara Merrill's consortium claim, so the defendants won.
• Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2019). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to join four additional parties, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, overruled the defendants' objection, and dismissed only the breach of warranty claims, so the take-home exposure negligence claims against the moving defendants survived.
• Metal Trades, Inc. v. US (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 1992). The district court reversed the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and ordered the Navy to renegotiate the repair contract with Metal Trades, Inc. and cover its increased costs for removing asbestos insulation and lagging.
• Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997). The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that Metro-North, the railroad, was not liable for Buckley's emotional distress claim or for his claim to lump-sum medical monitoring costs, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Meyer v. Iowa State Penitentiary (Iowa Supreme Court, 1991). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed denial of occupational disease death benefits to Margaret Meyer, finding the claim never arose under section 85A.12, and reversed the district court's remand order; the State penitentiary prevailed.
• Meyers v. Chesterton (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for reconsideration of the order remanding the case to Louisiana state court and denied its alternative motion to stay the remand pending appeal, so the plaintiffs prevailed.
• Meyers v. Chesterton (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' (Meyers and Palermo's) motion to remand to state court, holding the defendants, including GE, failed to establish a basis for federal officer removal.
• Michals v. William T. Watkins Meth. Church (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 1994). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the Michals family's claims against the church, its trustees and the two contractors, holding that the parents could not recover for mental distress and the children could not recover for increased risk of future illness.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss only as to plaintiffs' wrongful death employer liability claim, which was dismissed with prejudice, and otherwise denied it, so plaintiffs' other wrongful death claims against Ford continue.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add survival, wrongful death, premises and employer liability claims against Ford, found strict products liability claims already pleaded, and said a continuance would cure prejudice to Ford.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Ford's motion to quash the trial subpoena to Matthew Fyie, granted plaintiffs leave to designate Fyie's deposition testimony, and granted Ford's motion to strike plaintiffs' late objections to Ford's counterdesignations of Victor Michel's testimony.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The magistrate judge granted the Michel plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second supplemental and amended complaint adding Ford Leasing Development Company, LLC as a defendant, over Ford Motor Company's opposition.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court denied Cummins Inc.'s and Ford Motor Company's joint motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Michel's survivors) keep their claims against both defendants.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court denied Ford's and Cummins's motions to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein and Christopher Depasquale, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The court granted Cummins's and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' experts Dr. Brody and Dr. Castleman for late disclosure of their reports and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the scheduling order.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding Louisiana defendant Taylor-Seidenbach was improperly joined and Cummins' removal was timely, so the case stays in federal court.
• Migues v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1981). The Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of Nicolet's motions for directed verdict and JNOV on exposure and causation, but reversed the partial summary judgment that asbestos products were unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law and remanded the whole case, so Nicolet won on the main appellate issue and Mrs. Migues lost her $1.5 million judgment for now.
• Migues v. Nicolet Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1980). After a $3,000,000 jury verdict for the widow, the court applied the credit rule (crediting the $400,000 settlement against the verdict) instead of pro rata apportionment, rejecting Nicolet's request. It found the award excessive and ordered a remittitur to a $1.5 million verdict, or a new trial on damages if the plaintiff refused.
• Mikelsen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The district court denied Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs, Mr. Mikelsen's widow and his personal representative, won and the claims against Warren Pumps went forward.
• Milan-Leal v. Brenntag N. AM. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied retailer Lot Less's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims and all cross-claims, and denied its indemnity cross-claims as premature; the plaintiff estate prevailed on the motion.
• Miller v. Agripac, Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2022). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of about $5.2 million for Donald and Linda Miller against Kaiser Gypsum, rejecting Kaiser Gypsum's challenges to the recklessness instruction and the denial of a directed verdict, and holding any error on joint and several liability harmless.
• Miller v. American Art Clay Co. Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2014). The federal district court granted summary judgment to AMACO and R.T. Vanderbilt against the Miller estate and Jane Miller because plaintiffs could not show which AMACO clay Miller used.
• Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1993). The Sixth Circuit vacated the $650,000 punitive damages award against the shipowners, remanded for the district court to reconsider their indemnity and contribution claims against the asbestos suppliers under comparative fault, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff estate.
• Miller v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted Crown Equipment Corporation's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and all cross claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs lost as to Crown.
• Miller v. Armstrong World Industries (Colorado Supreme Court, 1991). The Colorado Supreme Court answered the Tenth Circuit's certified question no: discovering pleural thickening and calcification did not start the limitations period on a later asbestosis claim, which favored plaintiff Miller over the defendant manufacturers.