Asbestos Cases A–Z: O

59 decisions whose name begins with O.

• O'banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1992). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. against Stanley and Louise O'Banion, finding no reversible error.
• O'brien v. National Gypsum Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1991). The Second Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and judgment against Celotex, finding the exposure evidence sufficient and any hearsay error harmless; the plaintiff's cross-appeal on damages remained stayed by Celotex's bankruptcy.
• O'connell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2008). The court denied O'Connell's motion to remand, holding that Buffalo Pumps properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute because it showed a colorable military contractor defense.
• O'connor v. Aerco International, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division reversed the three orders that had granted summary judgment to Fisher Scientific, Thomas Scientific and VWR International, and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• O'connor v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2007). The district court denied the City of Baltimore's motion to dismiss, holding that O'Connor had standing to sue under the Medicare Secondary Payer statute, so he won at this stage.
• O'connor v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987). The court affirmed the judgment for Raymark Industries after a jury found O'Connor was exposed to Raymark's asbestos products but that the exposure did not cause his mesothelioma; the executrix lost.
• O'leary v. Dillingham Construction NA, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Dillingham Construction and held that plaintiff Betty O'Leary's expert declaration was enough to raise a triable issue that the insulation contained asbestos.
• O'neil v. Crane Co. (California Supreme Court, 2012). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for entry of a judgment of nonsuit in favor of pump and valve makers Crane Co. and Warren Pumps, defeating the O'Neil family's strict liability and negligence claims.
• O'neil v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered for Crane Co. and Warren Pumps LLC after the trial court granted nonsuit, so the O'Neil family's claims could go forward.
• O'stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983). The Ohio Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiff, holding the action timely under a discovery rule, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits against the asbestos-product defendants.
• Ocasek v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1992). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the $3,629,191.20 judgment for Hugh Wilson's estate against the Manville Trust would not accrue post-judgment interest, so the estate lost on the interest issue.
• Ochoa v. Spx Cooling Technologies, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for cooling tower makers BAC and SPX (Marley's successor) and against plaintiffs Jo Ann Ochoa and Arianna Huerta, finding no triable issue that Ochoa was exposed to asbestos from their towers.
• Oddo v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2015). The appeals court reversed the judgment against Clariant/Southern Talc, affirmed Ford's liability, reallocated fault to Ford 65%, Union Carbide 25% and Higgins 10%, and amended the survival damages award against Ford, so the plaintiffs lost against Southern Talc but kept their judgment against Ford.
• Oglesby v. Consol. Rail Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 6th Appellate District, 2009). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the medical malpractice claim against Firelands Regional Medical Center and its summary judgment for Consolidated Rail Corporation, so the Oglesby family lost on both claims.
• Olds v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Cummins, Inc. and against plaintiff Paul Olds because there was no evidence he was exposed to an asbestos-containing Cummins product.
• Olds v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2014). The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Paul Olds's claims against Dana and entering judgment for Dana.
• Oliver v. Campbell McCORMICK, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court granted Oliver's motion to sever and remand all non-third-party claims to Baltimore City Circuit Court, and granted in part and denied as moot in part Campbell-McCormick's motion to reconsider the stay, keeping only the third-party claims.
• Olivo v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2005). The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment for Exxon Mobil, which had been granted on the ground that it owed no duty to the decedent, and remanded for further proceedings, so plaintiff Anthony Olivo prevailed on the appeal.
• Olivo v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2006). The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of summary judgment for Exxon Mobil and remanded for further proceedings on whether the hazard-incident-to-the-work exception applies, so plaintiff Olivo's claim continued.
• Olivotto v. DeMarco Bros. Co. (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2007). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court review panel's decision for Mrs. Olivotto on causation and medical expenses, reduced the medical award by $4,800 for double recovery, upheld the denial of weekly indemnity benefits, and dismissed her cross-appeal.
• Ollerton v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2023). The district court denied plaintiff William Ollerton's motion to remand, holding that defendant National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Olsen v. Oklahoma Gas and Elec. Co. (Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, 4th Division, 2012). The Court of Civil Appeals reversed summary judgment for Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and remanded, holding the statute of repose did not bar Eloise Olsen's wrongful death claims.
• Olson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2024). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Joy Global (P&H) on all claims, rejecting the estate's argument that the trial court should have given an ongoing duty to warn instruction.
• Olson v. Brenntag N. AM. Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The trial court ruled on what evidence the jury may hear in the punitive-damages phase: it excluded evidence of Johnson & Johnson's post-2015 conduct and statements (a ruling for J & J), and allowed new phase II evidence, out-of-state conduct with a nexus to the harm, and 1960s-1990s advertisements (rulings for plaintiffs).
• Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court denied Johnson & Johnson's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability, but vacated the damages awards and ordered a new trial on damages unless the Olsons accept reduced compensatory and punitive awards.
• One Beacon American v. Huntsman Polymers (Utah Court of Appeals, 2012). The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Huntsman, holding Texas law governed and required the exposure trigger theory, so One Beacon must pay 100% of Huntsman's defense and settlement costs.
• Oneal v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2014). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion and granted Crane's motion as to Crane valves, but denied Crane's motion as to Cranite sheet gaskets, so that claim goes to the jury.
• Orr v. State (Montana Supreme Court, 2004). The Montana Supreme Court reversed the District Court's dismissal of the Libby miners' negligence suit against the State of Montana and remanded for a fact-finder to decide breach and causation; the miners won this round and the State lost.
• Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1999). The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's judgment upholding a mandatory limited-fund class certification and settlement of asbestos personal-injury claims against Fibreboard, ruling for the objecting class members (petitioners) against Fibreboard and its insurers, and remanded.
• Orvosh v. Program OF Group Ins. for Salaried Emp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2000). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for Donald Orvosh, held that Volkswagen's termination of his long-term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, remanded for summary judgment for Volkswagen and the plan, and affirmed the denial of attorney fees.
• Osteen v. AC & S., Inc. (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1981). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Court's award on rehearing, which made Peter Kiewit Sons' Company pay the whole death benefit to the widow, Connie Osteen, and it allowed her a $2,500 attorney fee on appeal.
• Osterhout v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, 2014). The district court denied the Osterhouts' motion to remand to state court, finding Foster Wheeler and General Electric had a colorable government contractor defense, and denied without prejudice their motion for partial summary judgment on that defense.
• Otten v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2018). The court granted the Ottens' motion to remand and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, rejecting Liberty Mutual's arguments for diversity jurisdiction.
• Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Robert and Louise Overly against shipyard owner Ingalls Shipbuilding, rejecting Ingalls' challenges to the evidentiary rulings, the lost-years damages, and the settlement allocation.
• Owens Corning Fiberglas v. Ind. Comm'n (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1990). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, which upheld the Industrial Commission's death-benefit award to the widow, Charlotte Hammond, against Owens Corning Fiberglas and denied Owens Corning credit for her loss of consortium recovery.
• Owens Corning v. Bauman (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1999). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the admission of Dr. Hammar's testimony, the refusal to amend the ad damnum clause, the refusal to submit punitive damages, and the denial of remittitur for excessiveness, but remanded so a new jury could decide when Hammond's mesothelioma arose for purposes of the noneconomic damages cap, which went against Owens Corning on the standard but partly for it on the jury question.
• Owens Corning v. Credit Suisse First Boston (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2005). The court estimated Owens Corning's total liability for all pending and future asbestos injury and death claims, including contract claims, at $7 billion, between the estimates urged by the claimants' side and the Banks' side.
• Owens Corning v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2004). The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the tobacco defendants on all of Owens Corning's claims, holding they were barred by the remoteness doctrine, and did not reach the cross-appeal issues.
• Owens Corning v. Walatka (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1999). The court reversed the trial court's refusal to apply Maryland's noneconomic damages cap to the Walatka verdicts, ruling for Owens Corning and Owens-Illinois, and remanded to apply the cap to all claims; it affirmed the Adams judgments against Owens Corning, ruling for the Adams plaintiffs.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Am. Centennial Ins. (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, 1995). The court granted OCF partial summary judgment on known loss, notice, trigger, scope of coverage, exhaustion of the ACIC/PNIC layers, defense expenses, and Associated's time-barred fraud claim. It granted Associated its motion on the exhaustion time frame and ACIC and PNIC their motion on punitive damages. It denied OCF's motion on ACIC's and PNIC's fraud claims and denied Associated's expected-or-intended motion, so both go to trial.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (Florida Supreme Court, 1999). The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question yes and approved the Fourth District's decision upholding the $31 million punitive damages award for Ballard against Owens-Corning.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Baltimore City (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 1996). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the $2,600,000 punitive damages award against Owens-Corning for lack of proof of actual knowledge, affirmed the compensatory award for the City of Baltimore, and rejected the juror-misconduct claim.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1996). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the jury's liability findings and compensatory awards for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and Porter Hayden, but reversed the $1.5 million punitive damages award against Owens-Corning in the Scruggs case.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1997). The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting its Batson, state-of-the-art evidence and statute of limitations challenges.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Keeton (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 1996). The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for four plaintiffs and their spouses against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting all six of the company's points of error about evidence and the jury charge.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone (Texas Supreme Court, 1998). The Texas Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals' judgments for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding any error in excluding OCF's mitigation evidence harmless and that the punitive awards, alone or aggregated with prior paid awards, did not violate due process.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Schmidt (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 1996). The court of appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's prejudgment interest calculation and its taxing of ad litem fees against the minor plaintiffs, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning, denying it a malpractice credit and a pro rata settlement credit.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sitz (Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, 1998). The court of appeals reversed the $20 million judgment for the Sitz family against Owens-Corning, holding the trial court wrongly applied offensive collateral estoppel on liability issues, and remanded the case.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 1996). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs (about $1.8 million compensatory and $3.7 million punitive damages) against Owens-Corning, overruling all eleven points of error.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson (Virginia Supreme Court, 1992). The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment for Watson's estate against Owens-Corning, upholding the compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury.