Asbestos Cases A–Z: T

73 decisions whose name begins with T.

• Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1991). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a new trial and remanded for a new trial on negligence and conspiracy, because the Sumner Simpson documents were wrongly excluded and the error was not harmless; the plaintiffs (Threadgill's widow and children) won against the Manville Fund.
• Thurmon v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, 2014). The district court granted Crane Co.'s re-filed motion for summary judgment on claims about Crane valves, ruling against the plaintiffs, and directed the clerk to close the case.
• Thurmon v. Georgia Pacific, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2016). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Crane Co. against the Thurmon estate and his children, because they offered no evidence that a Crane Co. product caused his mesothelioma.
• Tippin v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court granted American International Industries partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Corey Tippin's punitive damages claim against it and denied the rest of its motion, leaving causation for trial.
• Tippin v. 3M Co., Alcat (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and granted Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and LTL Management LLC's motion, dismissing plaintiff Tippin's complaint against them.
• Tisco Intermountain v. Industrial Com'n of Utah (Utah Supreme Court, 1987). The Utah Supreme Court vacated the Industrial Commission's award of death benefits to Jean Werner, finding no substantial credible evidence that her husband was last injuriously exposed to asbestos while working for Tisco, so Tisco and the State Insurance Fund prevailed.
• Tkk USA Inc. v. Safety National Casualty Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2011). The court granted Thermos's motion for summary judgment, holding Safety National must reimburse Thermos's defense costs in the Perkins lawsuit, denied Safety National's cross-motion, and denied Thermos's motion for attorney fees under Section 155.
• Tkk USA, Inc. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2013). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for TKK (Thermos), holding Safety National's excess policy covered TKK's costs of defending and settling the Perkins mesothelioma suit, and affirmed the denial of most section 155 fees and the small fee award for the motion to reconsider.
• Tobin v. Aerco Intl. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiff showed no exposure to asbestos from a Crane product; the action continues against the other defendants.
• Today's Exp., Inc. v. Barkan (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1993). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the sellers (the Barkans and Taubergs) and their real estate agent Howard Hanna Company, holding the buyers' fraud and negligence suit over asbestos in an apartment building was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Todd Shipyards Corporation v. Perez (Texas Supreme Court, 2000). The Texas Supreme Court denied Todd Shipyards' petition for review, leaving in place the court of appeals' reversal of summary judgment for Todd and in favor of Garcia's daughters; Justices Hecht and Owen dissented from the denial.
• Tooey v. AK Steel Corporation (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Western District, 2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court's denial of summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Tooey and Landis and their spouses) may sue their employers at common law and the employers lost.
• Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff Christina Torrejon against Mobil Oil Company, including the $1.8 million general damage award, and refused to reduce Mobil's liability for the settling manufacturers' fault.
• Totten v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The district court denied William Totten's motions to remand to state court and to strike the notice of removal, holding that Crane Co. properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Toy v. Honeywell International Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The court granted NAPA's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and terminated NAPA from the case, ruling against plaintiffs Thomas and Agnes Toy as to NAPA.
• Tragarz v. Keene Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1992). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the $3,000,000 judgment for Grace Tragarz against Keene and Owens-Corning Fiberglas, but reversed the denial of Keene's request to file a contribution cross-claim against OCF and remanded for proceedings between the two defendants.
• Trapp v. CertainTEED Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District, 2018). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for CertainTeed and Calaveras on the negligence, premises liability and strict liability claims, but held both defendants entitled to summary adjudication on the warranty and retained-control claims, which the Trapp family had abandoned.
• Trimper v. Porter-Hayden (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1985). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Baltimore City circuit court's judgments for all defendants, holding that the widows' wrongful death and survival claims were time barred because suit was filed more than three years after each husband's death.
• Tucker v. CompuDyne Corp. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2014). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's order requiring CompuDyne to disclose paragraphs 18(a) and (b) of its inadvertently disclosed Litigation Analysis, modified to allow redaction of a few lines of counsel's legal impressions; plaintiffs largely won.
• Turcotte v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2018). The court ruled on the choice-of-law motions, holding that New Hampshire law governs all issues, which granted the Plaintiffs' motion and denied the Defendants' motions to apply Florida law. It also rejected Westinghouse and GE's request to apply New Hampshire law to liability and Florida law to damages.
• Turley v. Familian Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Familian Corporation and sent the case back, so the Turleys won the appeal and recovered their costs.
• Tycz v. Asbeka Industries OF New York, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2012). The district court granted James Tycz's motion to remand the case to New York state court, finding Blodgett had not shown the non-diverse New York defendants were fraudulently joined, and denied his request for costs.
• Tysenn v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1981). The district court granted Owens-Illinois summary judgment on Veronica Tysenn's fear-of-disease claim, on Eagle-Picher's and Pacor's cross-claims, and on Anthony Tysenn's claims to the extent the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease Act made compensation his exclusive remedy. It put off deciding whether the dual capacity doctrine applied.