Asbestos Cases A–Z: R

175 decisions whose name begins with R.

• Rabatin v. Allied Glove Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2011). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for General Electric, holding the 12-year statute of repose in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5536 barred the estate's claims over asbestos-insulated turbines, and Rabatin, executor of Cameron's estate, lost.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The district judge overruled objections by Pennsylvania Electric and Crane, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny judgment on the pleadings and affirming denial of Crane's motion to exclude 'each and every exposure' expert testimony, so plaintiffs prevailed on both points.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2016). The court denied Crane Co.'s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and let the jury verdict for the plaintiffs stand as molded.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2016). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion to mold the verdict, granted the Rabovsky plaintiffs' motions to mold the verdict and for delay damages, and entered a molded judgment of $377,096.73 against Crane Co.
• Radosta v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, holding that Lorillard Tobacco Co.'s removal was untimely.
• Ragas v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Gulf Engineering Company's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing Ellery Ragas's manufacturer, professional vendor and intentional concealment claims against it.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted the premises-owner defendants' partial summary judgment on strict liability under former article 2317 for crane exposures in 1996 or earlier, and denied it for any later years; Ragusa lost on the earlier years.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied the defendants' Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff Frank Ragusa's experts Dr. Kraus and Dr. Landreneau, so plaintiff's specific-causation testimony on his mesothelioma may be presented at trial.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied all nine summary judgment motions by premises owners and product companies, so Ragusa's asbestos claims against Pharmacia, Legacy Vulcan, Syngenta, Marathon, Murphy Oil, International Paper, Westinghouse and Riley Power continue.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion to remand the case to state court, keeping it in federal court against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and the other defendants.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment on strict liability, direct negligence and intentional tort claims for the 1989 exposures, and denied it on vicarious liability, so Ragusa lost on three theories and won on one.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Frank Ragusa Jr.'s motion for summary judgment that he has mesothelioma and that asbestos caused it, over opposition from Amdura, Syngenta, Rubicon and FMC.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted summary judgment to Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and to Travelers as insurer of Avondale's alleged executive officers, dismissing Ragusa's negligence and intentional tort claims as barred by the LHWCA.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted LIGA's summary judgment motion as to coverage of Avondale itself, because Avondale is a high net worth insured, and denied it without prejudice as to coverage of Avondale's executive officers.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion to remand, holding that defendants Huntington Ingalls and Albert Bossier properly removed under the federal officer removal statute and that removal was timely.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Ragusa family's wrongful death claims as not timely "covered claims"; LIGA won and the plaintiffs lost on those claims.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion for a preferential trial setting, ruling for defendant Huntington Ingalls because an expedited trial would not allow enough time for discovery and preparation.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The district court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion to remand, holding that defendants Huntington Ingalls and Albert Bossier properly and timely removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Rahmes v. Adience Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2007). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for R.E. Kramig & Company, ruling against the Estate of Robert Rahmes, because the Estate did not show Kramig supplied the asbestos products to Armco Steel or that they were a substantial factor in his illness.
• Ramirez v. Avon Products, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 2024). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order that let Avon file third-party contribution claims but severed and stayed them so the Ramirezes' trial could go ahead as scheduled; Avon lost and the Ramirezes prevailed.
• Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2009). The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeal's judgment for Ray Rando against his former employers JCI and Parsons, holding his tort suit was not barred by workers' compensation exclusivity or peremption and upholding liability and the $2.8 million general damages award.
• Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2009). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Lou-Con, Inc., dismissing Murphy Oil's cross-claim for contractual defense and indemnity, even though it found the trial court erred in holding that secondary evidence could not prove a lost indemnity agreement.
• Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2008). The court affirmed the bench-trial judgment awarding Ray Rando damages against Parsons and Jacobs, rejecting both companies' challenges on liability and damages.
• Raney v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1990). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of about $450,000 for the widow, Edna Raney, against Owens-Illinois, Celotex and Raymark, holding the evidence let the jury find the missing asbestos warnings were a proximate cause of her husband's death.
• Ransford v. Griffin Wheel Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Griffin Wheel Company, holding the Ransfords' state-law claims were preempted by federal railroad safety statutes.
• Ransom v. Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Lori Ransom (successor to Glade Cookus) against Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd., rejecting Calaveras's challenge to the jury's 24 percent fault allocation; one justice dissented.
• Rareshide v. Mobil Oil Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The appeals court affirmed most of the workers' compensation judge's ruling for refinery worker Carl Rareshide against Mobil Oil and its insurer National Union. It cut his temporary total disability benefits to six months, awarded him supplemental earnings benefits afterward, added $500 in appeal attorney's fees, and held his heart attack not compensable.
• Rasso v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2025). The trial court denied defendant Shulton, Inc.'s motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Patricia Rasso, executor of Linda English's estate, kept the earlier denial of summary judgment.
• Rasso v. Avon Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiff's claim against Colgate continues.
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Ford, Brenntag Specialties, Whittaker Clark & Daniels and Honeywell because Ratcliff's claims were time-barred, and recommended terminating the other pending motions as moot.
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's and Hennessy Industries' renewed motions and dismissing the fraud count (Count 8) against them, leaving the plaintiff's other claims in place.
• Rathbun v. Barretts Minerals, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted the Rathbuns' motion to remand to Alameda Superior Court, finding Chattem and Lucky had not shown the California defendants were fraudulently joined, and denied the Rathbuns' request for fees and costs.
• Ratliff v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 2009). The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Norfolk Southern and remanded, holding the release Mr. Ratliff signed in a voluntary separation program was void under FELA section 5 as to his mesothelioma claim unless it reflected a bargained-for settlement of that known claim.
• Re' v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's transfer of Diana Re's Orleans Parish suit to Jefferson Parish, ruling for defendants Garlock and W.R. Grace over her objection; one judge dissented.
• Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal and remanded with directions to stay the action instead, finding Florida a suitable forum on the record but holding that a stay, not dismissal, was the proper remedy; plaintiffs (the Reaser family) won on the remedy, defendants won on the forum.
• Rebbeck v. Honeywell International, Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2019). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial courts' dismissals on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Honeywell, and remanded so the Gardner order would be amended to a conditional dismissal without prejudice like the others.
• Reed v. Reichhold Liquidation, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court denied, without prejudice, Reichhold Liquidation's motion for summary judgment against the Reed plaintiffs, ruling that the sole proximate cause defense is likely no longer available under Iowa law and that factual disputes would remain even if it were.
• Reera v. AO Smith Corp. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2014). The court granted Boston Edison's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of James Reera's estate, offered no admissible evidence that Reera was exposed to asbestos at the Mystic station, and directed entry of final judgment for Boston Edison under Rule 54(b).
• Rehm v. Ford Motor Company (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Ford Motor Company against the Rehm family, and held Ford's cross-appeal moot while addressing its merits.
• Rehm v. Navistar International (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2005). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for all sixteen property-owner defendants, holding that they were immune under up-the-ladder workers' compensation immunity, so Rehm's estate and family lost.
• Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1995). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rapid-American Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Kenneth Reid's claim against it continues.
• Relyea v. Borg-Warner Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2015). The court denied the defendants' motion in limine to exclude plaintiff's expert Dr. Ohar's causation testimony, and declined to rule on the "every exposure counts" challenge because defendants had not shown she relied on it.
• Reserve Min. Co. v. Environmental Protection Agcy. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1975). The Eighth Circuit, en banc, affirmed the injunction against Reserve Mining's air and water discharges but modified it to give Reserve a reasonable time to switch to on-land tailings disposal and cut air emissions, and otherwise affirmed in part and reversed in part (for example, rejecting the asbestos emission rule APC 17 as applied to Reserve).
• Rettig v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2006). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Toledo Edison, reversed summary judgment for General Motors, and remanded because a fact question remained on whether Rettig or his employer knew of asbestos dangers.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied the summary judgment motions of General Electric and ViacomCBS/Westinghouse, so the plaintiffs' claims against the two turbine manufacturers go forward.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part Berkshire's summary judgment motion: claims tied to the second policy period and to the father's second-hand exposure were dismissed with prejudice, while the claim of direct exposure during the first policy period survived for Plaintiffs and Avondale.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied Aerojet Rocketdyne's motion for summary judgment, finding fact disputes on whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos at Barnard and Burk and whether Aerojet inherited its liabilities, so plaintiffs and Avondale prevailed on the motion.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied American Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment on coverage, so the plaintiffs prevailed, and ordered American's counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that Kirk Reulet had mesothelioma and that it resulted in his death, over the opposition of Bayer CropScience, Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted in part the motion by insurers Wausau and Liberty and stayed the plaintiffs' direct action claims against them pending the Reilly-Benton bankruptcy; the claims were not dismissed.