Asbestos Cases A–Z: S

338 decisions whose name begins with S.

• Strand v. Allied Insulation Supply Co. (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of General Pipe Covering's third-party contribution claims against Quality Insulation and Econ Insulation, so Quality and Econ won and General Pipe lost.
• Strickland v. Owens Corning (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1998). The Sixth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in denying Owens Corning's new-trial/remittitur motion and remanded for a remittitur reducing the judgment to no more than $883,731 (50% fault), failing which a new trial limited to fault apportionment would be held; the plaintiff estate partly lost and Owens Corning partly won.
• Strickland v. Union Carbide Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Strickland's widow and children against Union Carbide, holding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that exposure to Calidria contributed to his risk of peritoneal mesothelioma.
• Strobel v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2019). The district court granted Douglas and Jo Ann Strobel's motion to remand their talc mesothelioma suit to Solano County Superior Court, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy-related removal.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2022). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant's fifth defense, because material facts about the decedent's exposure to other asbestos remained disputed; Honeywell prevailed on the motion.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2022). The court rescinded its earlier order excluding plaintiff's experts Drs. Tarin and Cohen on specific causation and denied Honeywell's Daubert motion, so plaintiff Strong prevailed on this motion; no Daubert hearing was held.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2021). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order barring Honeywell from obtaining Terry Strong's medical records and death certificate, and denied Honeywell's motion to exclude his product identification testimony and its request for a competency hearing.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2021). The court denied Honeywell's motion for a protective order to cap plaintiff Kristina Strong's deposition-testimony designations at 15 transcripts, leaving Honeywell to oppose the designations on their merits.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Honeywell partial summary judgment on the conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, dismissing them with prejudice because Plaintiff Strong did not respond; the failure-to-warn portion of the motion remained pending.
• Sublett v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2011). The court granted Joseph and Virginia Sublett's motion to remand and sent the case back to the Madison County, Illinois circuit court, finding General Electric had not established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Succession OF Adams (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Nancy Megas, executrix of Jacob Adams's succession, against legatee Diane Peoples, holding that the wrongful death and survival claims were not succession assets and the will's bequest of a share of the lawsuit was ineffective.
• Sullivan v. Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Trial Court (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2006). The Supreme Judicial Court held that the courthouse occupants' declaratory-relief and estoppel claims against the Chief Justice for Administration and Management survived the motion to dismiss, dismissed the nuisance, assault and battery, environmental-law and general-superintendence counts, and remanded.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2010). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order affirming summary judgment for Union Carbide, Certainteed and Allied Signal, disapproved Quate v. American Standard, and sent the cases back so Summers and Nybeck could proceed.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2005). The en banc Superior Court was evenly divided, so the trial court's summary judgment for the asbestos defendants (CertainTeed and Union Carbide) against plaintiffs Summers and Nybeck was affirmed.
• Sunbeam Corporation v. Dortch (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of Sunbeam's petition for a writ to compel dismissal of the wrongful death suit, so the executors of Leon Fischer's estate won and Sunbeam lost.
• Suoja v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2016). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Owens-Illinois and dismissed the estate's claims because plaintiff Gary Suoja did not prove Oswald Suoja was exposed to Owens-Illinois Kaylo or that any such exposure substantially caused his mesothelioma.
• Suoja v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2015). Denied Owens-Illinois's motion for summary judgment, which argued mootness, lack of standing and issue preclusion, so plaintiff Gary Suoja's claims continued; plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply was denied as moot.
• Surita v. Arvinmeritor, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to all defendants (Meritor, Arvinmeritor, Goodyear, Trane, Meritor WABCO, Caterpillar, Navistar and Genuine Parts) because plaintiff Rojelio Surita offered no proof their products were a substantial factor in his wife's mesothelioma, and denied Genuine Parts' jurisdiction motion as moot.
• Surre v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice plaintiff John Surre's claims against Crane, holding Crane had no duty to warn about asbestos insulation it did not make or sell.
• Susino EX rel. Estate OF Decedent Susino v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of the Virgin Islands, 2023). The District Court granted plaintiff Carmela Susino's motion to remand the wrongful death and survival action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, rejecting the removing defendants' (OSG's, joined by two Hess defendants) asserted grounds for federal jurisdiction.
• Sutherland v. Alma Plantation, LLC (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2016). The court of appeal reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for Alma Plantation, L.L.C. on the issue of duty and remanded to the plaintiffs' benefit for further proceedings.
• Swanson v. Simpson Timber Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). Affirmed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit for Simpson Timber Company, holding it owed no duty for secondary exposure and that the self-exposure claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity.
• Swanson v. The Marley-Wylain Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the $5,489,688.68 judgment for Swanson against The Marley-Wylain Co. and remanded for a new trial, because the jury was instructed on California rather than Michigan causation law.
• Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting Akebono Brake Industry Co.'s motion to quash service, holding the Sweikharts validly served the Japanese parent by serving its American subsidiary's agent.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2017). The court denied plaintiff Rosie Sweredoski's motion in limine to preclude defendant Crane Co.'s expert pathologist Dr. Graham from testifying on causation, finding him qualified under Rule 702.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The court denied plaintiff Rosie Sweredoski's motion for summary judgment against Crane Co. on its government contractor defense, finding triable fact issues on all three prongs for both the design defect and failure-to-warn claims.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The court granted in part and denied in part Crane Co.'s motion in limine, allowing evidence of settled defendants' fault but not that of bankrupt trust entities, and denied Crane's motion to compel the plaintiff's bankruptcy trust claim forms.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion in limine to bar "each and every exposure" evidence, but held that such evidence alone cannot prove causation and adopted the frequency, regularity, proximity test.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The Superior Court granted defendant Crane Co.'s motion to amend its answer to add the government contractor defense, because plaintiff Rosie Sweredoski did not show prejudice.
• Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Crane Co.'s summary judgment motion: the Sweredoskis' strict liability, negligent failure-to-warn and implied warranty claims survived, but their civil conspiracy claim was dismissed.
• Swiger v. AR Wilfley & Sons, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, 2020). The district court granted the plaintiff estate's emergency motion to remand and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, rejecting the removal by J-M Manufacturing, Core & Main and Mueller.
• Swogger v. Waterman SS Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1989). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the asbestos manufacturers' motions to dismiss Sea-Land's third-party contribution claims, holding that admiralty law rather than New York law governs; Sea-Land won and the third-party defendants lost, with one justice dissenting.
• Swogger v. Waterman SS Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 1987). The court denied the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss the third-party complaints of Sea-Land and Puerto Rico Marine Management, holding that federal admiralty law governs, so the shipowners' indemnity and contribution claims survive.
• Sybron Transition Corp. v. Security Ins. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2001). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the bench-trial judgment that Security Insurance's share of the Press settlement was $230,208 and that Sybron/Kerr must refund the excess of Security's $500,000 contribution.
• Sybron Transition v. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1997). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Hartford, holding that Sybron's 22-month delay in notifying Hartford of the Press claims barred coverage and that Hartford was entitled to recover its $500,000 settlement contribution.
• Sybron Transition v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2000). After a court trial, the court granted Security's motion to amend the judgment, allocating the Press settlement by months and cutting Security's share to $230,208.39. It granted Sybron's motion only to clarify one finding of fact, and denied Sybron's request for attorneys' fees.
• Sydow v. Weyerhaeuser Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, 2015). The court found Owens-Illinois' motion to dismiss moot, denied 3M's and Weyerhaeuser's motions to join it, and granted Theresa Sydow's motion to file a third amended complaint substituting her as special administrator and adding a wrongful death claim.
• Sylvester v. Blue Bird Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (successor to Fel-Pro) and Morse TEC LLC (successor to Borg-Warner) against the plaintiffs, finding no genuine dispute that Mr. Labrum was exposed to their asbestos products.