Asbestos Cases A–Z: N

82 decisions whose name begins with N.

• N RE General Electric Company (Texas Supreme Court, 2008). The Texas Supreme Court held the trial court abused its discretion in denying General Electric, Warren Pumps and Ingersoll-Rand's forum non conveniens motions, and conditionally granted mandamus directing dismissal, against plaintiff Richards.
• N RE Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The bankruptcy court granted LTL Management's motion, extending the automatic stay (and, alternatively, a preliminary injunction) to J&J, New JJCI and the retailers, over the objections of the talc claimants' committee, AWKO and certain insurers, and set a review for June 29, 2022.
• Naden v. Celotex Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1989). The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Celotex, Flintkote, Keene and Eagle-Picher because the plaintiff, the widow of a mesothelioma victim, offered no evidence that the defendants' products were used where her husband worked.
• Najolia v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Reilly-Benton Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it with prejudice, because plaintiffs could not show Najolia, Sr. worked on ships or was near Reilly-Benton's products.
• Najolia v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2012). The court denied plaintiff Najolia's motion to remand, holding that General Electric and CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Nance v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1985). The en banc appeals court reversed the summary judgment that had gone to the asbestos defendants on limitations grounds and remanded, because the record did not show whether the claim arose in Florida or Virginia; it later certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.
• National Ass'n of Demolition Contractors v. Costle (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1977). The D.C. Circuit denied the demolition contractors' association's petitions for review and upheld the EPA Administrator's 1974 and 1975 amendments to the asbestos demolition regulations.
• National College OF Business and Technology, Inc. v. Davenport (Virginia Court of Appeals, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the College's employees were exposed to the asbestos hazard, but reversed the finding that the violations were "serious" and remanded for the Commissioner to re-determine the penalty, so the College won in part and the Commissioner won in part.
• National College OF Business and Technology, Inc. v. Malveaux (Virginia Court of Appeals, 2012). The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the circuit court's ruling that the College's asbestos-related workplace safety violations were "other than serious" with no penalty, not "de minimis," so the Commissioner prevailed over the College.
• National Fire Insurance Company OF Hartford v. Burns & Scalo Roofing Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford and Transportation Insurance Company, declaring they had no further duty to defend or indemnify Burns & Scalo Roofing Company in the underlying Bremer asbestos suit.
• National Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh, PA v. Burlington Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court granted National Union's summary judgment motion in part, declaring that Burlington had a duty to defend Mayore in the World Trade Center clean-up actions, denied Burlington's motion, and left indemnity for trial and defense costs to a Special Referee.
• National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh v. Porter Hayden Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2005). The court denied the insurers' (National Union and American Home) motion on trigger of coverage, granted it on pro rata allocation, and granted it in part on completed operations aggregate limits, leaving fact questions on whether Porter Hayden's operations were completed.
• National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh, PA v. Porter Hayden Company (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2014). The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment: the Insurers (National Union and American Home) waived the voluntary obligation provision, but they may challenge the reasonableness of the Trust's settlements and Porter Hayden bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on reasonableness.
• National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh, PA. v. Porter Hayden Company (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland, 2014). The court granted Porter Hayden's motion to exclude the insurers' expert Brown, and granted in part and denied in part its motion to exclude the insurers' expert Mullin, excluding only his testimony on loss allocable to the excess policies.
• Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1982). The court denied all post-trial motions (judgment n.o.v. and new trial) by both plaintiffs and defendants, leaving the jury's liability and damages verdicts in place, including the finding that George Neal's claim was time-barred.
• Neely EX rel. Estate OF Goehring v. Union Carbide Corporation (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2021). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment for Union Carbide, so the Goehring children's wrongful death claim failed.
• Nelson v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court granted Cleaver-Brooks' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the complaint against it and continuing the action against the remaining defendants.
• Nelson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The court granted Crane's motion as to Great Lakes exposure and Carrier's motion as to the feed-pump turbines, but denied both motions as to Crane valves and Carrier air conditioning units aboard the Kitty Hawk, so those claims go forward for the Nelsons.
• Nelson v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2013). The court granted summary judgment to Air and Liquid Systems (Buffalo Pumps), Alfa Laval, Crane, Nash, Kaiser Gypsum and Union Carbide, dismissing the widow's negligence, strict liability and conspiracy claims for lack of evidence that her husband was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court vacated the $14.5 million judgment for Darlene Nelson and the Nelson estate against Crane Co., Hobart Brothers and Lincoln Electric, and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages.
• Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2013). The Superior Court vacated the $14.5 million judgment for Darlene Nelson (executrix of James Nelson's estate) against Crane Co., Hobart Brothers and Lincoln Electric, and remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages.
• Nelson v. Aurora Equipment Company (Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District, 2009). Affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for Aurora Equipment Company, holding it owed no premises-liability duty to Eva Nelson's estate, which lost.
• Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (Arizona Supreme Court, 1982). The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision, set aside the Industrial Commission award that dismissed the widow's claim as untimely, and remanded, so the widow won over the employers and carriers.
• Nelson v. Keene Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1st Division, 1996). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the Nelson and Dunning actions for lack of jurisdiction, ruling for the defendant companies and against the plaintiffs.
• Nelson v. Texaco, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2024). The appeals court granted Fleming Construction's writ, reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment on the borrowed employee defense, denied a stay, and remanded for a hearing on the merits of that defense.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (New York Court of Appeals, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., holding that the plaintiff's causation proof was legally insufficient, so the defendant won and the plaintiff lost the jury verdict.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2020). The Appellate Division modified the judgment against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (WCD) to increase it to $3,300,000 because the trial court had miscalculated the settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the plaintiff's jury verdict; one judge dissented and would have entered judgment for WCD.
• Nesbiet v. General Electric Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2005). The court denied Nesbiet's motion to remand to state court, holding that General Electric properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, and ruled GE's stay motion moot.
• Netversant Wireless Systems v. Dept. OF Labor & Industries (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals upheld L & I's citation of Netversant for failing to notify and train employees about asbestos in Building 1910, affirmed the superior court's ruling that two findings were unsupported, reversed the superior court's removal of the March 27, 2002 violation, and remanded to the Board to clarify the violation dates.
• Netzer v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2014). The court granted Netzer's motion to remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, rejecting CBS Corp.'s removal because the passing of a witness deadline was not an "other paper" that triggered a right to remove.
• Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1981). The federal district court denied the summary judgment motions of Johns-Manville, Keene, Armstrong Cork, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and the third-party defendants, holding that the Wisconsin limitations period runs from the plaintiff's last exposure to any asbestos-containing product, and it set a schedule for further summary judgment motions on lack of recent contact.
• Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982). The Seventh Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, rejected the district court's rule that the limitations period runs from last exposure, and also rejected the plaintiffs' discovery rule. It held that Wisconsin law starts the period when the disease becomes diagnosable, a rule that favors the manufacturer defendants, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Neuer v. American Art Clay Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied the motions for summary judgment by Metro-North, the MTA, Conrail and APU, leaving plaintiff Thomas Neuer's FELA asbestos claim to go to trial.
• Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2016). The federal district court denied Neumann's motion for reconsideration and her request to amend, and granted the six remaining defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, ending the case.
• Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2016). The court granted MW Custom Papers' motion to dismiss Neumann's negligence claim, holding that the company, as a manufacturer, owed no duty to her; MW Custom Papers won and Neumann lost.
• Neureuther v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The court denied defendant John Crane's motion (joined by Warren Pumps) to exclude plaintiff Charles Neureuther's expert, Dr. Matthew Vuskovich, finding him qualified and his methodology reliable under Daubert.
• Neureuther v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The court denied the motion in limine by CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), joined by Crane Co. and Warren Pumps, to exclude plaintiff Charles Neureuther's expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the expert may testify.
• New Hampshire Insurance Company v. Pennington (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2018). The court denied Pennington's challenge to personal jurisdiction and found subject-matter jurisdiction, but granted her motion to dismiss to the extent of abstaining and staying New Hampshire Insurance's declaratory judgment action in favor of the pending Missouri workers' compensation proceeding.
• New Orleans Stevedores v. Ibos (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2003). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's ruling that New Orleans Stevedores was the responsible employer, but reversed the ruling giving it a credit for the widow's settlements with two earlier employers, and remanded.
• New York City Asbestos Litig (New York Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order upholding denial of Chevron's summary judgment motion based on a 1997 release, because Chevron had not shown as a matter of law that the release barred the mesothelioma claims of the Souths; the plaintiffs prevailed over Chevron.
• Newinski v. John Crane, Inc. (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of John Crane's new-trial motion but reversed the district court's reallocation of the non-party entities' share, and remanded for entry of judgment against Crane for the whole award less the Pierringer-released defendants' 20% share, which favored the Newinskis.
• Newman v. Richardson (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 1991). The court granted the widows' mandamus petition as molded, ordering the Workers' Compensation Commissioner to reprocess their claims as occupational pneumoconiosis claims and to pay their attorney's fees, but it did not order immediate referral to the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board.
• Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock v. Stilley (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2001). The Fourth Circuit denied Newport News Shipbuilding's petition for review and upheld the Benefits Review Board's decision holding the company fully liable to Stilley's widow under the last maritime employer rule.
• Newport News Shipbuilding v. Harris (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1991). The Fourth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board's denial of special-fund relief to Newport News Shipbuilding and remanded, ruling for the employer against the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
• Ney v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2016). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Asbestos Corporation Limited, vacated the state court's broad discovery order, and substituted a narrower order compelling ACL to produce documents about its fiber sales to three companies.
• Nichols v. Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2018). The Rhode Island Superior Court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on all counts, holding Crane owed a duty to the decedent and that causation evidence sufficed, so the plaintiffs' claims proceed.
• Nicolas v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2019). The district court granted plaintiff Barbara San Nicolas's motion to remand to state court, finding removal timely but no 'related to' bankruptcy jurisdiction over her claims against Johnson & Johnson, and denied the defendants' motion to transfer to Delaware as moot.
• Niedert v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Edith Niedert's claim against Goodyear continues.
• Niven v. EJ Bartells Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1999). The court reversed summary judgment for Rapid-American Corporation, holding Niven's 1986 release of Celotex did not bar his lung cancer suit and the claim was not shown to be time-barred, but affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen for lack of proof of exposure to its products.
• Noble v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The trial court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Harriet Noble's claims against Lennox continue.