Asbestos Cases A–Z: P

179 decisions whose name begins with P.

• Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2016). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Crane Co., CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), Goulds Pumps and Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo) against plaintiff Christine Pace, finding her evidence of exposure insufficient.
• Pack v. Artuz (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2004). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment to the prison officials (Artuz, Haponick, Richards and Gastin), dismissing inmate Charles Pack's asbestos-exposure complaint in its entirety.
• Painter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Sears, American Biltrite and CertainTeed, rejecting Sara Painter's claims over her late husband's mesothelioma.
• Palermo v. Eagle Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted in part and denied in part Avondale's motion to quash, narrowing the subpoena and requiring Avondale to produce relevant personnel records of Valmont and Glen Landry under a protective order, so plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Palermo v. Port of New Orleans (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2007). The appeals court reversed the trial court's bench-trial judgment for the plaintiffs, finding the Dock Board owed no duty and that the evidence did not show Dixie, Buck Kreihs and Eagle substantially contributed to the exposures.
• Palermo v. Port of New Orleans (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2006). The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs against the Dock Board, Eagle, Buck Kreihs and Dixie, finding no duty on the Dock Board and no proof that the ship repair companies' work substantially contributed to the diseases.
• Palmer v. 999 Quebec, Inc. (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2016). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for A.W. Kuettel & Sons, dismissing Deborah Palmer's negligence claim over her husband's take-home asbestos exposure, because she raised no genuine issue of fact showing Kuettel owed a duty.
• Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company (Minnesota Supreme Court, 2020). The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and the grant of summary judgment for Honeywell, holding Deborah Palmer's wrongful death claim time-barred.
• Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2019). The court affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell on limitations grounds and the dismissal of the claims against Walker Jamar for insufficient service of process, so the plaintiff Deborah Palmer lost both appeals.
• Palomares v. Thomas Dee Engineering Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Thomas Dee Engineering Company against plaintiff David Palomares, holding he could not show he was exposed to asbestos-containing laundry from the defendant.
• Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2008). The court held that Buffalo Pumps satisfied the federal-officer removal requirements but removed too late under § 1446(b), so it granted Margaret Pantalone's motion to remand to Connecticut state court.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2020). The court granted third-party defendant Fras-le North America's motion for summary judgment on Brake Supply's indemnity and apportionment claims and denied Brake Supply's motion to hold that motion in abeyance.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2020). The court denied third-party defendant Fras-le S.A.'s motion to dismiss Brake Supply's third-party complaint without prejudice, reserving judgment on service and personal jurisdiction and ordering 120 days of limited jurisdictional discovery.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2022). The court granted Brake Supply's motion to permit an apportionment instruction naming Fras-Le, a third-party defendant dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, contingent on Brake Supply presenting enough evidence at trial of Fras-Le's fault.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2022). The court granted third-party defendant Fras-Le's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against third-party plaintiff Brake Supply.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2021). The court denied Brake Supply's summary judgment motion on exposure, causation and the Middleman Statute defense, granted it on the Papineaus' punitive-damages claim, excluded only the plaintiffs' hygienist Paskal's warnings testimony, and denied the other motions to exclude experts.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2021). The court denied the Papineaus' motion to sever or bifurcate Brake Supply's third-party claims against Fras-le and Carlisle Industrial, so all claims will be tried together.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2020). The magistrate judge granted third-party defendant Fras-le S.A.'s motion for a protective order against all topics in Brake Supply's amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, allowing Brake Supply to serve a revised notice on Topics 2, 3, 4 and 22-28.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2020). The court granted Rudd Equipment's motion to dismiss Brake Supply's amended third-party complaint, dismissing the common law indemnity claim for lack of facts, while noting Brake Supply keeps its right to seek an apportionment instruction at trial.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2020). The district court overruled Honeywell's objection and left in place the Magistrate Judge's orders compelling Honeywell to answer an interrogatory and a document request, so the Papineaus prevailed.
• Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to New Jersey Superior Court, finding Boeing failed to show it acted under a federal officer for federal officer removal, so the plaintiffs prevailed over Boeing.
• Papsodero v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Papsodero's motion for a joint trial with the McCormick estate's asbestos action over opposition from defendants Burnham, Jenkins and Velan Steam Trap.
• Parfait v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted Charles Parfait's motion to remand to Orleans Parish state court because the Avondale defendants' federal officer removal was untimely, and denied his request for costs, fees and Rule 11 sanctions.
• Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Standard Motor Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2023). The court granted Parker Hannifin's summary judgment motion and denied Standard Motor's, ruling that Standard Motor must indemnify Parker for the $6 million punitive award (with interest, $7,218,085.44) from the Barr asbestos verdict, plus attorney's fees and costs.
• Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Standard Motor Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2020). The court denied Standard Motor Products' motion to certify its earlier order for interlocutory appeal and to stay proceedings, leaving Parker Hannifin's contract claims to continue in district court.
• Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Standard Motor Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2019). The court denied Standard Motor Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed Parker Hannifin's duty-to-settle and 'duty imposed by law' claims and part of its declaratory claim, let the duty-to-defend-on-appeal and good-faith claims proceed, and stayed the unripe indemnity claims.
• Parker v. Henry A. Petter Supply Co. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2005). The court vacated summary judgment for Petter Supply and Hannan Supply as premature and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the dismissal of Mine Equipment & Mill Supply, so Parker won in part and lost in part.
• Parker v. Hunting Point Apartments, LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2015). The district court granted the landlord defendants' motion to dismiss the pro se tenant's amended complaint, including his asbestos injury claim, and also dismissed his claim against the EPA Administrator.
• Parks v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for B.M.W., Hunter and Morrison on product identification and upheld the denial of Chicago Firebrick's product-identification motion, but reversed summary judgment for Chicago Firebrick, Uniroyal and Green on the statute of repose and remanded for the Parkses.
• Paroni EX rel. Estate OF Paroni v. Alstom SA (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2020). The court granted plaintiff Elodie Paroni's request for jurisdictional discovery and denied Alstom SA's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice to renewal after discovery.
• Paroni EX rel. Estate OF Paroni v. General Electric UK Holdings Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2021). The court held it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant GE UK Holdings Ltd, granting its motion to dismiss, but gave plaintiff Elodie Paroni two weeks to move to transfer the case to California, failing which the case would be dismissed without prejudice.
• Paroni v. General Electric UK Holdings Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2021). The court granted plaintiff Elodie Paroni's unopposed motion and transferred the case against General Electric UK Holdings Ltd. to the Northern District of California to cure the lack of personal jurisdiction in New York.
• Patterson v. Colon (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2022). The court granted correctional officer Francisco J. Colon's motion to dismiss inmate Andre Patterson's Eighth Amendment claim over an alleged asbestos-related exposure, denied leave to amend again, and closed the case.
• Patterson v. Consolidated Aluminum Corporation (Alabama Supreme Court, 2012). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment for Consolidated Aluminum Corporation and Lonza America, holding the Pattersons' claims against them were time-barred because the Pattersons did not promptly substitute them for fictitious defendants.
• Paulus v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Crane Co., upholding the denial of Crane's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and rejecting Crane's request for a setoff for possible future asbestos bankruptcy trust recoveries.
• Paulus v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying J-M Manufacturing's renewed motion, filed about three years after the settled wrongful death case was dismissed, to seal a privileged memorandum in the court file; the plaintiffs prevailed.
• Pawlowski v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court denied the Estee Lauder defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, holding the plaintiffs' July 22, 2021 complaint timely.
• Payne v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2022). The court found the two actions related under Local Rule 123 and reassigned the later-filed Payne case to the same district judge and magistrate judge as the first-filed case, without consolidating them.
• Payne v. BNSF Railway Company (Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway Company against Donna Payne, holding that Neil Harrah's 2017 release barred her FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Payne v. BNSF Ry. Co. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 2022). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF, holding that Harrah's 2017 release barred his daughter's FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Payne v. Charlotte Heating & Air Cond. (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's award of total disability and death benefits to Mrs. Payne, the administratrix, against Ross and Witmer and Travelers, holding the death benefits claim was properly before the Commission and timely.
• Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015). The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the trial judge wrongly granted CSX a new trial on liability and that the plaintiff's expert proof on causation was admissible. It affirmed the Court of Appeals as modified and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
• Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial final judgment after a bench trial, holding Viad Corporation was not liable as successor to Griscom-Russell for its asbestos-related liabilities, so Viad won and the Paynes lost on this issue.
• Pease v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2012). The district court adopted the Special Master's report, rejected Crane Company's objections, and denied Crane's second motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against Crane continued.
• Pecher v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2017). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against Weyerhaeuser and Owens-Illinois, and ordered plaintiffs' counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
• Pecher v. Weyerhaeuser Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016). Ruling before trial on both sides' motions in limine, the court granted some, denied others and reserved on several, so neither plaintiff Janet Pecher nor defendant Weyerhaeuser won across the board.
• Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 1988). The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Raymark Industries and the other asbestos product defendants, holding Mertice Pecorino's mesothelioma claim barred by limitations, and said the 1981 release and assignment would also have barred it.
• Peek v. Skw/clinton (Alaska Supreme Court, 1993). The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's affirmance of the Workers' Compensation Board's order denying and dismissing Mary Peek's death benefits claim against SKW/Clinton, which won over the widow.
• Peeples v. Wcab (foster Wheeler) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1990). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board, holding that the employer Foster Wheeler was entitled to subrogation against the widow's third-party settlements and approving the Board's modified 988.4-week credit calculation.
• Peerman v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1994). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Georgia-Pacific and Turner & Newall (T & N), holding that Mrs. Peerman did not produce evidence that her husband inhaled asbestos dust from the defendants' products.