Asbestos Cases A–Z: P

179 decisions whose name begins with P.

• Potts v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 1988). The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, including Celotex, and dismissed Elizabeth Potts's mesothelioma suit as barred by Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations.
• Pounders v. Enserch E & C, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court, 2013). The Arizona Supreme Court held that New Mexico substantive law, including its statute of repose, governed Mrs. Pounders' wrongful death claim, affirmed summary judgment for Enserch, BW/IP and Riley Power, and vacated parts of the court of appeals' opinion.
• Pounders v. Enserch E & C, Inc. (Arizona Court of Appeals, 1st Division, Dept. A, 2012). The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Enserch, Riley and BW, holding that New Mexico law applied and its statute of repose barred Mrs. Pounders' wrongful death claims.
• Powell v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 1980). The court reversed the Appeal Board's order rejecting the widow's death benefits claim and remanded for the lung cancer claim to be considered under the occupational disease standards of W.Va. Code § 23-4-1, favoring the widow Valena Powell over the Commissioner and Board of Regents.
• Price v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Delaware Supreme Court, 2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Patricia Price's motion to amend her complaint as futile, ruling for DuPont and against the Prices.
• Pritchett v. Asbestos Claims Mgt. Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2002). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order enforcing the settlement jointly and severally against the remaining CCR defendants for the unpaid balance, and rejected their accord-and-satisfaction defense, so plaintiff Pritchett won.
• Pritt v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2022). The court denied General Electric's motion to exclude plaintiffs' industrial hygiene expert Dr. Tsai and denied as moot its motion to exclude Capt. Burger. It granted GE summary judgment on the Navy-service claims, denied it on the civilian electrician claims, and denied it on loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2023). The magistrate judge allowed Ruth Pritt's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint over John Crane's futility objection, so she may seek survival, loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2022). The district court overruled John Crane's objection to the magistrate judge's order and left in place the denial of its motion to strike plaintiffs' expert Captain Burger, so the Pritts kept their expert.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2022). The court denied John Crane's motion for summary judgment on the Pritts' failure-to-warn and design-defect claims, rejecting its government contractor and derivative sovereign immunity defenses at this stage, so the Pritts prevailed on the motion.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The trial court denied Duro Dyne Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs James and Joy Proctor's claims against Duro Dyne go forward.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied defendant Andal Corporation's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact on whether Andal, as successor to Star Circle and Circle Floors, was responsible for plaintiff James Proctor's asbestos exposure at the World Trade Center.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Momentive Specialty Chemicals (sued as Borden Chemical) summary judgment, because plaintiff James Proctor's deposition testimony raised a fact issue about exposure to asbestos from Borden's Duro-Dyne duct sealer.
• Protopapas v. Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA (South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2023). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the special circuit court's order, which rejected USF&G's statute of repose defense and held that asbestos personal injury claims against dissolved Covil Corporation were not barred; the Receiver prevailed over USF&G.
• Protopapas v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2024). The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of the motion to dismiss Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' Chapter 11 case and dismissed the appeal by the Receiver and the Talc Claimants committee, so WCD's bankruptcy stayed in place.
• Prude v. Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Company OF New York (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, and Travelers' joinder in part, dismissing the surviving plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against Avondale and Travelers with prejudice.
• Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. US Gypsum Co. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2001). The court granted U.S. Gypsum summary judgment on res judicata for seven of eight buildings (denied for South Tower and Century Center IV) and dismissed Prudential's RICO claims as time-barred, then declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
• Psi Energy, Inc. v. Roberts (Indiana Supreme Court, 2005). The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for William and Beverly Roberts against PSI Energy, holding PSI was not vicariously liable for its contractor ACandS but that the general verdict was supported under the premises liability instructions given to the jury.
• Psi Energy, Inc. v. Roberts (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2004). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of PSI Energy's motions for judgment on the evidence and to correct error, leaving the jury verdict for the Robertses in place against PSI.
• Public Service Company v. Austin Power, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, 2016). The court denied Austin Power's motion for judgment on the pleadings, so Public Service Company of Oklahoma's contractual indemnity claims over the McDoulett asbestos settlement could go forward.
• Puppe By Puppe v. AC and S., Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, 1990). The federal district court denied the defendants' motion to exclude any punitive damages claim, ruling that punitive damages may be sought in a North Dakota wrongful death action, and it adopted a procedure under which punitive damages are heard only after a plaintiff's verdict on liability and damages.
• Purcell v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1998). The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for plaintiff (the estate of John Purcell) against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and E.J. Bartells on the defendants' appeal and on plaintiff's cross-appeal, rejecting the claims of error from both sides.
• Pustejovsky v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District, 1998). The court affirmed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Pittsburgh Corning and Rapid-American, holding the widow's mesothelioma claim was barred by limitations because it accrued in 1982 with the asbestosis diagnosis.
• Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (Texas Supreme Court, 2000). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for Rapid-American on limitations grounds and remanded to the trial court, so Pustejovsky's mesothelioma suit may proceed.
• Putzel Elect. Contractors v. Jones (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2006). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's affirmance of the workers' compensation award to Allen Ray Jones, rejecting the limitation and insufficient-exposure arguments of Putzel Electric Contractors and its insurer CNA Risk Management.
• Pyle v. AH Bennett Co. (U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, 2023). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to compel: plaintiffs Pyle and Frericks must say whether they investigated asbestos trust claims, but they will not be ordered to file trust claims or to amend their other discovery responses; defendants may serve more discovery.
• Pyle v. AH Bennett Co. (U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota, 2022). The court denied the defendants' motions to enforce North Dakota's asbestos trust disclosure statute and to dismiss, without prejudice, but allowed defendants to serve federal discovery requests for trust information and extended the scheduling deadlines.
• Pyle v. Pfizer Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The trial court denied Pfizer Inc. and Coty, Inc.'s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so the Pyles' case stays in New York, and granted defendants' unopposed motion to amend their memorandum of law.
• Pyscher v. US (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2017). The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss Lawrence Pyscher's Federal Tort Claims Act negligence/malpractice complaint and dismissed it with prejudice.