Asbestos Cases A–Z: S

338 decisions whose name begins with S.

• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2010). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City judgment for Carl Saville against Scapa Dryer Fabrics and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, and upheld the denial of their cross-claims against the settling defendants.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2009). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Carl Saville against Scapa Dryer Fabrics and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, and upheld the denial of their JNOV and new-trial motions and of Scapa's request for a further reduction for bankruptcy trust payments.
• Scearce v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2013). The court granted the Scearces' motion to remand to New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, because Raytheon failed to show its federal officer removal was timely.
• Schaffer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2015). The district court granted plaintiff Ann Schaffer's motion to remand the case to Missouri state court, rejecting Exxon Mobil's removal, and denied her request for attorney's fees.
• Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments for General Motors, holding that the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempted the railroad workers' and survivors' state-law tort claims over asbestos in locomotives.
• Schiavo v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1995). The Appellate Division affirmed the compensatory and punitive damage awards against Owens-Corning in favor of the Schiavo plaintiffs, finding the Saranac document error harmless given the small punitive award.
• Schildknegt v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems (as successor to Buffalo Pumps) and the nonsuit for Parsons, Fluor and Fluor Enterprises, and remanded for further proceedings, so the Schildknegt plaintiff prevailed on appeal.
• Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court excluded the specific-causation opinions of plaintiff's experts Dr. Harrison and Dr. Tarin as unreliable, granted summary judgment to defendant Dravo Basic Materials Company, and dismissed Schindler's Jones Act claim with prejudice.
• Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The district court denied Dravo Basic Materials Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff Robert Schindler's Jones Act suit stays in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
• Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Company, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2019). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's exclusion of plaintiff Schindler's two specific-causation experts and its summary judgment for defendant Dravo Basic Materials.
• Schmoll v. ACandS, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 1988). After a bifurcated bench determination on the papers, the court found Raytech Corporation to be a successor in liability to Raymark Industries for its asbestos products, so plaintiff Schmoll won and Raytech lost on that issue.
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2021). The Court of Appeals dismissed Schneider Electric (Square D)'s appeal of the denial of summary judgment as interlocutory, for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded to the trial court, which favors Williams.
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Schneider Electric (Square D), so the estate of Vickie Williams may continue its claims against Square D.
• Schrader v. Ameron International Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2020). The Superior Court vacated the judgment entered on the jury's verdict for Ameron International Corporation and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court wrongly refused the jury's request to see an exhibit; Colleen Schrader prevailed on that point.
• Schrank v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2020). The trial court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against Ford, finding the plaintiffs' experts failed to show specific causation.
• Schwartz v. Abex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to Pratt & Whitney on both the strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims, so the plaintiff lost against that defendant.
• Schwartz v. Advance Auto Supply (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied Sherwin-Williams' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs' claims against it go forward.
• Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' affirmance of the verdict and held that Honeywell, as successor to Bendix, should have received a directed verdict, so the plaintiff Schwartz lost.
• Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2016). The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Honeywell on the jury verdict, reversed the directed verdict on punitive damages, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.
• Sclafani v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2014). The court granted the joint motion for summary judgment on causation filed by the remaining defendants (Goodyear, Foster Wheeler and Crane, with Air & Liquid Systems, which had settled, also named as a movant) and ruled against the plaintiffs.
• Scott Co. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1983). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's award, which imposed liability only on Scott Company (and its insurer Liberty Mutual) and dismissed the later employers Atlas Heating and Western Air.
• Scott v. Duquesne Light Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court reversed summary judgment for Duquesne Light Company and remanded, so the Scotts may bring a common law tort claim against the employer.
• Scott v. Ford Motor Company (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2014). The court affirmed the judgment and compensatory damages for Patrick and Sharon Scott against Ford Motor Co. on the failure to warn claims, and reversed the ruling that barred punitive damages, remanding for a trial on punitive damages only.
• Scott v. Lennar Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgments for Lennar, Gordon N. Ball, Inc. and CH2M Hill, because the plaintiffs raised no triable issue of fact on causation.
• Scott v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1998). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the defendants' exceptions of prescription, so the claims of Reilly's wife and children against Kaiser Aluminum and the other defendants were time-barred.
• Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. US (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 1988). The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss Sea-Land's suit for contribution and indemnity, holding the contribution claim time-barred and noting Sea-Land could not support an indemnity claim.
• Seabridge v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (New York Supreme Court, Albany, 2017). The trial court denied Kelsey-Hayes Company's motion for summary judgment, finding a material issue of fact about whether it contributed to Robert Miles's injury and death, so the plaintiffs' claims against it continue.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1992). The court held the four non-settling defendants (W.R. Grace, U.S. Gypsum, GAF, National Gypsum) jointly and severally liable, deducted the Owens-Corning settlement and a one-sixth Manville Trust share from the verdict, and awarded the plaintiffs Rule 238 delay damages, with some periods excluded.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1992). The court granted W.R. Grace's and U.S. Gypsum's motions and entered partial summary judgment for them on the plaintiff's punitive damage claim, so Alma Sealover could not try punitive damages.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1993). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's treatment of the Manville Trust as a settled defendant, in plaintiff Alma Sealover's favor, and also reversed the delay-damages award covering a continuance the plaintiff requested, in W.R. Grace's favor, remanding for entry of a new judgment.
• Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Noppert (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1999). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order granting the Nopperts' motion to correct errors and remanded with instructions to reinstate summary judgment for Sears, so Sears won and the Nopperts lost.
• Sebright v. General Electric Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2021). The court denied GE's summary judgment motion on the negligence and warranty counts and on the government contractor defense, allowed GE's motion on the loss of parental society and loss of consortium counts, and allowed Velan's summary judgment motion in full.
• Seckular v. Celotex (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1986). The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment for the defendants on limitations grounds and directed that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed without prejudice, leaving the claim to be pursued in Florida alongside the pending Florida death action.
• Sedlacek v. AO Smith Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2008). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for ALCOA, holding that the workers' compensation and occupational disease acts barred the estates' negligence suits by the families of Frank Crooks and Edward Sedlacek.
• Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court denied Kaiser Gypsum's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or a reduced award, leaving the plaintiff's $15,000,000 verdict in place.
• Segroves v. Union Carbide (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2015). The Tennessee Supreme Court (through its Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel) reversed the trial court's summary judgment for employer Union Carbide and Martin Marietta Energy System and remanded the employee Jimmy Segroves's asbestosis claim for further proceedings.
• Senger v. AH Bennett Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motions for summary judgment in all nineteen North Dakota Amoco refinery cases, ruling against the plaintiffs, because there was no evidence the decedents were exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler's product or work.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Avondale's (Huntington Ingalls') summary judgment motion and dismissed Sentilles's state-law tort claims against it with prejudice, ruling that the LHWCA's exclusivity provision preempts them.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Avondale's motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's state-law tort claims against Avondale, both occupational and take-home, as preempted by the LHWCA's exclusivity provision.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court denied defendant Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment, so plaintiff Sentilles may pursue his claims about exposure at Pelnor on or after September 1, 1975, and the court did not categorically exclude evidence of post-1975 exposure.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court ruled on Avondale's objections to plaintiff Sentilles's trial exhibits: it overruled some, sustained others (including expert reports and several publications as hearsay), deferred many to trial, and dismissed several as moot.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Pelnor's motion for partial summary judgment and denied First State Insurance Company's cross-motion, holding that First State must indemnify Pelnor for all of its reasonable defense attorney's fees and costs.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court denied plaintiff Sentilles's motion in limine to exclude Avondale's expert Christopher Herfel, finding him qualified and his opinions relevant and reliable.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Avondale's Rule 12(c) motion dismissing with prejudice Sentilles's reasserted claims about post-June 1969 Avondale work and his father's and brother's Avondale employment, denied his motion for reconsideration, and barred him from using Pelnor's experts Pierce and Roggli at trial.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Pelnor's Rule 54(b) motion, entering partial final judgment on the order dismissing plaintiff Sentilles's claims against Avondale so that the dismissal can be appealed immediately.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Union Carbide, Amchem, Zurich (as alleged insurer of Marquette) and John Crane, and dismissed Sentilles's and Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s claims against them with prejudice.
• Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motions for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice Sentilles's claims about his employment there after June 23, 1969, and his secondary-exposure claims tied to his father and brother.
• Sequa Corporation v. Elyria Foundry Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2006). The court held that Sequa Corporation and its co-plaintiffs could not recover indemnification from Elyria Foundry Company, but could recover contribution for settlement payments exceeding their proportionate share of liability for post-February 12, 1999 harms; the parties were to submit the contribution amount within 45 days.
• Sequira v. 3M Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2015). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed Martin (government contractor defense) and for United Technologies, successor to Pratt & Whitney (no expert evidence of causation), against plaintiff Joni Sequira.