Asbestos Cases A–Z: T

73 decisions whose name begins with T.

• Tabor v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2008). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Levert-St. John against Hartford Steam Boiler on the duty to defend, the duty to indemnify and the statutory penalties, but reversed the award of fees and costs for Levert's claims against others and rendered judgment of $226,321.87.
• Tabor v. William B. Reily & Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Orleans Parish state court, ruling that Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) removed too late and did not establish federal officer removal.
• Taliferro v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1992). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's compulsory nonsuit for defendants Pittsburgh Corning and Fibreboard on James Taliferro's lung cancer and pleural thickening claims and remanded for further proceedings.
• Tallman v. WR Grace & Co.-Conn. (Iowa Supreme Court, 1997). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for W.R. Grace & Co. under the fifteen-year statute of repose and also affirmed denial of the other manufacturers' summary judgment motions, so both the plaintiff's appeal and the cross-appeal failed.
• Tatera v. FMC Corp. (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2010). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and left in place summary judgment for FMC on the negligence claim, so Vicki Tatera and Walter Tatera's estate lost.
• Tatera v. FMC Corp. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2009). The court affirmed summary judgment for FMC on Vicki Tatera's strict liability claim but reversed summary judgment on her negligence claim and remanded for further proceedings.
• Taylor v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2014). The court denied Alcatel-Lucent's motion to dismiss or stay, refusing Colorado River abstention, finding no abuse of process, and denying fees and costs, so plaintiff Taylor's suit continues.
• Taylor v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2023). The appeals court reversed the trial court's $250,000 sanctions award against plaintiff's attorneys Bevan in favor of Hallstar and Ester, and vacated the award.
• Taylor v. Csr Limited (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2008). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court's dismissal of the estates' claims against CSR Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiff estates.
• Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Crane, IMO, Ingersoll-Rand, Leslie and Elliott, rejecting Mrs. Taylor's failure-to-warn claims in strict liability and negligence.
• Taylor v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2015). The court granted Roy and Suzanne Taylor's emergency motion to remand the case to Florida state court because the non-diverse defendants had settled but not been formally dismissed, and denied their request for attorneys' fees.
• Taylor v. John Crane, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs David and Susan Taylor against John Crane Inc., rejecting the plaintiffs' cross-appeal and upholding the jury's allocation of fault to the Navy.
• Taylor v. Union Carbide Corporation (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted to Union Carbide and remanded for trial, ruling for David Taylor and his wife.
• Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied American Honda's motion for summary judgment, denied the other defendants' motions to preclude plaintiff's causation experts and for summary judgment, and denied the Frye hearing requests without prejudice to renewal at trial; Ford's motion was marked withdrawn.
• Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp. v. Carter (Texas Supreme Court, 1999). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment to the extent it reinstated the plaintiffs' actual damages claims, and rendered judgment that Carter and Wilson take nothing against Temple-Inland, which won.
• Templet v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted Robert Templet's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish civil court, rejecting Avondale's federal officer removal because it showed no causal nexus to the negligence claims.
• Templet v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2018). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding Templet's asbestos suit to Louisiana state court, rejecting removal by Huntington Ingalls, Albert Bossier Jr. and Lamorak Insurance.
• Terrance v. Dow Chemical Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2007). The court affirmed the judgment on the jury's $5,000,000 general damages verdict for the Terrance estate and surviving spouse against Exxon, and denied Exxon's JNOV, new trial and remittitur motions.
• Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for Borg-Warner Morsetec and Volvo Cars, and directed the trial court to vacate the order excluding the witness Sutton and the orders granting summary judgment, because the exclusion sanction was unauthorized.
• Tester v. American Standard, Inc. (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1999). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas and MacArthur Company, ruling that Tester, found more at fault than each of them, could not recover from either.
• Tetteh v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (Delaware Superior Court, 2016). The court granted summary judgment to AT&T Corp. and rejected the claim by Danielle Tetteh, individually and as administrator of Daniel Jones' estate, that the parent company was liable for Jones' mesothelioma.
• Textron, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. on Textron's declaratory relief complaint and both cross-complaints, and remanded with directions to deny Travelers' motions.
• TH Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC. v. Akaiwa (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2007). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, ruling for THAN and against the executor of Littlefield's estate because THAN was not an asbestos miner and the ten-year statute of repose barred the claim.
• Thacker v. Unr Industries, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court, 1992). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, which had upheld the jury verdicts for plaintiff Lois Thacker and denied the Manville Fund's request for judgment n.o.v.
• Thacker v. Unr Industries, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1991). The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict judgments for plaintiff Lois Thacker against the Manville Corporation Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, rejecting its requests for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial.
• Thalman v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1996). The appellate court affirmed the jury's damages award against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, reversed the trial judge's remittitur of the loss of consortium and wrongful death awards, and remanded for an amended judgment reflecting the full jury awards.
• Thaut v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The trial court denied Clark-Reliance Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, so plaintiff Rodney Thaut's claims against it continue.
• Thaut v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The trial court denied defendant Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Rodney Thaut's complaint and all cross claims, finding triable issues of fact on exposure.
• Thayer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1997). The Appeals Court reversed the judgment and verdict on liability against Owens-Illinois and ordered a new trial because state of the art evidence had been excluded, but affirmed denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial on damages.
• The Continental Insurance Company v. Pennsylvania Electric Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2024). The Superior Court affirmed the order denying Continental's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting Penelec's cross-motion, so Penelec won and Continental could not refuse to defend based on the Employer's Liability Exclusion.
• The Manville Trust Matching Claimants v. Dbmp, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2023). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order denying the Manville Trust Matching Claimants' request to proceed anonymously in the subpoena dispute with DBMP, and denied their motion to stay pending appeal as moot.
• The Marley-Wylain Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal granted Marley-Wylain's writ petition and directed the superior court to vacate its order denying the motion and to grant the motion to apply Michigan law to Swanson's claims against Marley-Wylain.
• Theodore v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court granted the motions of Caterpillar Inc. and Aurora Pump Company and dismissed the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff Gregory Theodore lost as to those two defendants.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. CO (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied Arconic/ALCOA's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff William Theophil because fact questions remained on his exposure and on ALCOA's control over the fireproofing spray.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff William Theophil's claims against it continue.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied defendant O'Connor Constructors, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff William Theophil's claims against O'Connor continue.
• Thibodeaux v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2008). The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment that dismissed Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company and its insurer OneBeacon, so the Thibodeauxs lost their claims against those two defendants.
• Thibodeaux v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Cynthia Thibodeaux as a plaintiff.
• Thomas v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2006). The appeals court amended the judgment to cut the surviving spouse's wrongful death award against Entergy Louisiana from $2.75 million to $1 million, and otherwise affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiffs, including the directed verdict for McCarty and the jury's finding of no fault by Johns Manville.
• Thomas v. Armstrong World Industries (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 1996). The appeals court reversed the dismissal of Royce Thomas's claim against his employer Anco Insulations, which had won on an exception of no cause of action, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2018). The court granted summary judgment to Ford, Honeywell and Abex on the breach of warranty claims and granted Abex's motion in part on market share liability, but denied summary judgment on all other claims, including punitive damages, so plaintiff Thomas's claims go forward.
• Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2018). The court granted Hennessy Industries' motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because its brake grinder contained no asbestos and could not have caused Thomas's mesothelioma.
• Thomas-Fish v. Aetna Steel Products Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2019). The court granted Sonic Industries' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff pled no facts showing it was a successor to the joiner contractor, and denied the plaintiff's motion to stay as moot.
• Thomas-Fish v. Aetna Steel Products Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2018). The District Court denied the widow's motion to remand, ruling that the defendants properly removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, because plaintiff Thomas-Fish did not plead facts supporting successor liability or punitive damages.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' (Avborne, Dover, Roller Bearing, Sargent entities) Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing most counts without prejudice with 15 days to amend, and dismissing the ultra-hazardous product count with prejudice.
• Thomasson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2015). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of the moving defendants (including Goulds, Bechtel, Warren, Trane, FMC, General Electric, Foster Wheeler and CBS) against plaintiff Claire Thomasson, and denied MetLife's motion to dismiss without prejudice while allowing 45 days of added discovery.
• Thompson v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied plaintiff Velma Lee Thompson's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute, a win for Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its co-defendants.
• Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1983). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for four defendants (Raybestos-Manhattan and others) against plaintiff Thompson, who could not show their products caused his asbestosis; one judge dissented and would have certified the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
• Thrash v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding the removing defendants (Boeing, UTC, Lockheed, Goodyear) had shown federal officer removal jurisdiction through a colorable government contractor defense.