Asbestos Cases A–Z: P

179 decisions whose name begins with P.

• Pefanis v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiff executrix's claim against DAP continues.
• Pefanis v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Donald Durham Company and Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC in full, so the estate's claims, including the punitive damages claim against Vanderbilt, go forward.
• Pelton v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2024). The court granted John Crane's summary judgment motion on the willful and wanton conduct count (Count II) but denied it on negligence and strict liability, so the Peltons may proceed on those counts and may seek punitive damages.
• Pendolino v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The trial court granted Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and all cross-claims against Nash, because plaintiffs did not show exposure to asbestos from a Nash pump; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Penegar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the executrix's Medicare Secondary Payer Act suit against Liberty Mutual for lack of Article III standing, so Liberty Mutual won and Penegar lost.
• Penegar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2022). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted Liberty Mutual's and Verisk's motions to dismiss the executrix's Medicare Secondary Payer Act suit for lack of Article III standing, and closed the case.
• Penegar v. United Parcel Service (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's findings that the worker's last injurious asbestos exposure occurred at UPS and its recalculated average weekly wage, and dismissed as moot the widow's appeal on the maximum compensation rate.
• Penn v. A-Best Prods. Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate District, 2007). The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motions to prove a prima facie case under H.B. 292. It reversed as to Ward's non-smoker lung cancer claim and the colon and laryngeal cancer claims, and remanded for a determination of whether those claims accrued under the 'should have known' clause; defendants largely lost on the statutory issues.
• Penn v. Amchem Products (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2011). The Appellate Division held that the trial court was wrong and that the evidence was enough for the jury to find Kerr Corporation liable to plaintiff Penn. It rejected Kerr's unpreserved challenges, noted the damage awards deviate from reasonable compensation under CPLR 5501(c), and recalled and vacated its May 2010 decision.
• Penn v. Amchem Products (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2010). The Appellate Division held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Kerr distributed the asbestos dental liners Penn used, rejecting the trial court's contrary finding in Kerr's favor, and ruled that the damage awards deviated from reasonable compensation.
• Penn. Gen. Ins. v. Park-Ohio Ind. (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010). The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, which had reversed the trial court, so Pennsylvania General Insurance Company won contribution from nontargeted insurers Nationwide and Continental, who lost because they were not prejudiced by the late notice.
• Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2008). The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment denying Pennsylvania General Insurance equitable contribution from Nationwide and Continental, and remanded for further proceedings on the shares each owes.
• Penny v. United Fruit Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 1994). The court dismissed the widow's asbestos claims against Cunard Steam, Elders, Royal Mail and Shaw Savill for lack of personal jurisdiction (and alternatively on forum non conveniens), and granted summary judgment to United Fruit, United Brands, Furness Withy Group and Furness Withy.
• Pepsi-Cola v. Employers Ins. Co. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's summary judgment for Wausau and denial of Pepsi's motion, and remanded with directions to grant Pepsi summary judgment on its duty-to-defend claim; Pepsi won and Wausau lost (one judge dissented).
• Perez v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2016). The court denied plaintiff Sylvia Perez's motion to remand, holding that Crane Co. had not waived removal and had established federal officer jurisdiction, so the case stays in federal court.
• Perez v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2016). The court granted General Electric's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (without prejudice) and denied the motions by Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps and John Crane to dismiss the loss of consortium count.
• Perez v. Century Indemnity Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Century Indemnity and Ace Property & Casualty, holding that the assigned bad faith claims were time-barred and that the policy product and vehicle exclusions barred the direct claims by the Perez family.
• Perez v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied the Port Authority's motion to dismiss the Perez plaintiffs' Labor Law § 200 complaint and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate the two actions.
• Perez v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. (Arizona Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, Dept. A, 1993). The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff on strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity against Southern Pacific, and also reversed the ruling that the products liability claim was barred by the statute of repose, remanding for further proceedings on both.
• Perez v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (Texas Court of Appeals, 1999). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, which had been based on its bankruptcy discharge, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in favor of the decedent's children.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the United States and against the plaintiff, finding she did not prove that actionable Navy conduct caused Geraldine Perkins's mesothelioma.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). The court denied the estate's motion to pre-admit exhibits and denied both sides' motions in limine, mostly as premature and without prejudice to renewal at the bench trial, and ruled generally on deposition designations; it left specific objections to a later order.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). The district court denied without prejudice the United States' motion to dismiss under the FTCA discretionary function exception and denied its motion for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiff's negligence claim for bench trial.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). The court denied the United States' motion to exclude plaintiff's three experts and denied without prejudice its motion to strike supplemental expert disclosures, so plaintiff won both motions for now.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). The court granted the United States' motion to amend the protective order so that unreleased Department of Defense technical information produced in discovery is treated as confidential, over the plaintiff's opposition.
• Perkins v. United States (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2023). The court granted in part and denied in part the United States' partial motion to dismiss: claims before March 1970, and claims over respirators, laundry service, shower facilities and failure to warn, were dismissed, while the claim over failure to provide protective clothing survived.
• Perrin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, 1994). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants Owens Illinois, Owens Corning and Fibreboard and third-party defendant Flintkote, and denied the Perrins' request to shift the burden of proof on causation.
• Perrone v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2022). The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the ERISA duty-of-prudence class action brought by J&J employee plan participants, ruling for Johnson & Johnson and the individual fiduciary defendants.
• Perrone v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2020). The court granted Johnson & Johnson's and the two executives' motion to dismiss the ERISA stock-drop class action without prejudice, with leave for the plan participants to amend within 45 days.
• Perry v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2013). The court granted Railroad Friction Products Corporation's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Alice Perry's state law claims as preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
• Perry v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1998). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of the widow's motion, ruling she should have been allowed to amend the notice of claim to add a wrongful death cause of action against the City of New York.
• Perry v. Dept. OF Rehab. & Corr. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate District, 2013). The court affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of inmate Alfonsia Perry's suit, so the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction won and Perry lost.
• Person v. Perry (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2021). On screening, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff Walter Person in forma pauperis status, found his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against the prison officials cognizable, and ordered the complaint served on the defendants.
• Peruyero v. Airbus Sas (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2014). The federal district court granted BAE Systems PLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the estate's amended complaint without prejudice, giving the plaintiff seven days to file a second amended complaint.
• Pete v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company, LLC (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2023). The Louisiana Supreme Court held the jury abused its discretion in awarding $9.8 million in general damages against Ports America, reduced that award to $5,000,000, and entered total judgment of $5,551,020.70 for Pete, affirming the rest.
• Pete v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company, LLC (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2023). The appeals court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict against Ports America Gulfport, Inc. (with Cooper T. Smith and Safmarine) for Henry Pete's take-home asbestos exposure and his mesothelioma, including the $10,351,020 award, and rejected Ports America's challenges.
• Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled Crane Co.'s objections, adopted the magistrate panel's report, and denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against Crane Co. proceed.
• Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court sustained CBS Corporation (Westinghouse)'s objection that no evidence tied Mr. Constantinides's injury to original Westinghouse gaskets and packing, but denied summary judgment without prejudice on the bare metal defense and denied it on the sophisticated purchaser defense, so plaintiffs won in part and CBS won in part.
• Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court sustained CBS/Westinghouse's objections and granted summary judgment on the original gaskets and packing for lack of product-identification evidence, but denied summary judgment without prejudice on the bare metal defense and denied it on the sophisticated purchaser defense, so the plaintiffs partly lost and partly prevailed.
• Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled Leslie Controls' objections and denied its summary judgment motion on product identification and medical causation, leaving the bare-metal question for the Florida transferor court, so plaintiffs prevailed for now.
• Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court overruled Leslie Controls' objections and denied its summary judgment motion on product identification and causation, leaving the bare metal defense to the transferor court, so the plaintiffs prevailed for now.
• Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2015). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corp. and remanded, holding the construction statute of repose did not bar Pamela Peter's claim because Sprinkmann's daily insulation repairs were not improvements to real property, though the pre-1994 damages exception did not apply.
• Peterson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (Montana Workers' Comp. Court, 2013). The Workers' Compensation Court held that Steve Peterson's occupational disease claim against Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (insurer for Stimson) was time-barred, so Liberty won and Peterson received no benefits.
• Petes v. Hayes (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1981). The Fifth Circuit reversed the jury verdict for American Optical Corporation and remanded for a new trial, because the first special interrogatory conflicted with the proximate-cause instruction and was likely to mislead the jury, so plaintiff Petes prevailed on appeal.
• Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil, Ford and Rossmoor, rejecting plaintiffs' challenges to the summary adjudication for Exxon, the nonsuit for Rossmoor, the jury instructions on Ford, and the defense verdict for Exxon.
• Petrie v. Novelis Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2021). The magistrate judge recommended denying Novelis's individual-capacity motion, granting its successor-in-interest motion on the negligence, loss of consortium, survival, wrongful death and gross negligence claims, and denying it on the strict products liability claim.
• Petrina v. Allied Glove Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Union Carbide and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for Margaret Petrina over Union Carbide.
• Petrini v. Mohasco Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Mohasco Corporation, holding Mohasco liable as successor in interest to Volker through the merger, in favor of Therese Petrini and the other plaintiffs.
• Petro v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied the motions by Tishman, Mario & Dibono and Port Authority to set aside the jury verdict for plaintiff James Petro, to enter judgment for them, to order a new trial, or to reduce the damages.
• Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal dismissed John Crane's appeal of the expert-fee award, modified the judgment to set the Pfeifers' net economic damages at $1,374,622.29, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for the Pfeifers, including the $14.5 million punitive award.