Asbestos Cases A–Z: R

175 decisions whose name begins with R.

• Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Company (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2019). The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding for Universal (Hilco) against the plaintiffs that the settling defendants' interrogatory answers and corporate depositions were admissible and the jury could allocate fault to those defendants.
• Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Company (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2018). The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial on apportionment only, leaving in place the jury's finding of liability against Hilco (successor to Universal) and the damages amount, because the trial court wrongly admitted settling defendants' evidence; plaintiff won on that point and lost on her other arguments.
• Roy v. Colgate Palmolive Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding the in-state defendant K&B was properly joined, so diversity jurisdiction was lacking and Johnson & Johnson's removal failed.
• Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2001). The court granted Parler & Wobber's motion for reconsideration and entered summary judgment for Parler & Wobber on Miles & Stockbridge's third-party contribution claim, and it entered judgment for Royal against Miles & Stockbridge and Barreiro for $1,655,916 plus prejudgment interest.
• Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2001). The court granted Royal Insurance summary judgment against Miles & Stockbridge on the malpractice claims about the default judgment and settlement, but granted Miles judgment on the third-party-claims issue; it also granted Parler & Wobber judgment on indemnification and denied it on contribution.
• RT Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Galliher (Delaware Supreme Court, 2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's $2,864,583.33 judgment for Galliher against R.T. Vanderbilt and remanded for a new trial, because of the missing jury instruction on the employer's duty of care and the prejudicial inadmissible testimony.
• RT Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2016). The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed most of the trial court's insurance allocation and coverage rulings but reversed three in Vanderbilt's or the insurers' favor: it removed 1993-2007 defense costs from Vanderbilt, rejected the fixed 1962 default exposure date for pending and future claims, and held the occupational disease exclusions reach non-employee claims. It remanded for further proceedings.
• RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Franklin (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2009). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the $4,090,000 judgment for Johnny Franklin and Flora Franklin's estate against R.T. Vanderbilt Company, rejecting all of Vanderbilt's claims of error.
• RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Connecticut Supreme Court, 2019). The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment, which upheld the trial court's continuous trigger and unavailability-of-insurance rulings and the pollution exclusion ruling, and held that the occupational disease exclusions bar coverage for claims by nonemployees as well as employees, a result favoring the secondary insurers over Vanderbilt on that exclusion.
• RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017). The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the trial court on three rulings (defense costs for 1993-2007, the 1962 default exposure date for pending and future claims, and the occupational disease exclusions) and affirmed all other rulings, remanding for further proceedings.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (Washington Supreme Court, 2018). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, and remanded for further proceedings because Margaret Rublee raised a genuine factual issue on whether Pfizer was an apparent manufacturer of the asbestos products.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding that Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a genuine issue of fact that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of Insulag and Panelag.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a fact issue that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of the asbestos refractory products.
• Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Louisiana Supreme Court, 1999). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and denied Hollingsworth & Vose's exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, so the Ruckstuhls' suit against it could proceed in Louisiana; the case was remanded.
• Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 1998). The appeals court granted H & V's writ, reversed the trial court's denial of its exception of lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissed Hollingsworth & Vose as a defendant, so H & V won and the Ruckstuhls lost on this issue.
• Rudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Rudolph and Sletten, Inc., holding that workers' compensation exclusivity barred Allen and Pamela Rudolph's tort claims after the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend.
• Rudy v. A-Best Products Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2005). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment and final judgment for the TMI Defendants (Metropolitan Edison and affiliated GPU and power companies) against Rudy's estate and his wife.
• Rullo v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Giuseppe Rullo's motion for a joint trial with Scandaliato v ABB, Inc., over the opposition of Triangle PWC, Kennedy Electrical Supply and the other defendants.
• Ruppel v. AO Smith Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2012). The court granted plaintiff Henry Ruppel's motion to remand and sent the case back to Madison County, Illinois state court, rejecting CBS Corporation's federal officer removal.
• Ruppel v. CBS Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2012). The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's remand order and remanded, holding CBS (Westinghouse's successor) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute because it had a colorable government contractor defense; Ruppel lost on remand.
• Rushton v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion and directed entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) in favor of Avondale on the earlier summary judgments dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it.
• Russell v. Ford Motor Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability and damages findings against Ford Motor Company, but vacated the judgment and remanded so Ford's counsel could review the settlement agreements before a new judgment was entered on the settlement offset.
• Russell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for the widow, Linda Russell, against Illinois Central Railroad, rejecting the railroad's challenges to expert testimony, causation, evidentiary rulings, limitations and the new-trial motions. It also upheld the trial court's $919,315 set-off for medical expenses, so the widow's cross-appeal failed.
• Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (California Supreme Court, 1997). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, which had ordered a new trial for Owens-Illinois. It held that the burden-shifting instruction was error but harmless, and that the tobacco company defense issue was controlled by Richards, so the plaintiffs' judgment against Owens-Illinois was not overturned.
• RW Beckett Corp. v. Allianz Global Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2020). The court denied Fireman's Fund Insurance Company's motion to certify questions to the Ohio Supreme Court and denied its motion for summary judgment on the pollution exclusion, settlement credits, contribution and bad faith, so R.W. Beckett Corp. prevailed at this stage.