Asbestos Cases A–Z: U

65 decisions whose name begins with U.

• Ulbricht v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The court granted USF&G's motion to consolidate the two insurance coverage cases for all purposes through trial, and denied without prejudice its request to dismiss the Ulbrichts' action, leaving party alignment and order of proof for later.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied the Watts defendants' motion to apply New Hampshire law, so plaintiffs Edward and Lisa Unger prevailed on the choice-of-law question and New York law will apply.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied the Watts defendants' motion for summary judgment and partly granted plaintiff Edward Unger's cross-motion for sanctions, with conditional preclusion and $10,000 in costs and fees against each of Watts Water Technologies, Watts Regulator Co. and their law firm.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied defendant Watts Regulator Co.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Edward and Lisa Unger's claims against Watts continue.
• Union Bank OF California, NA v. Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2007). Affirmed summary judgment for Dowman Products, holding that the estate of Morris Nagl could not bring a wrongful death action against Dowman after Nagl had already won a personal injury judgment against it for the same exposure.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Brannan (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2021). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Union Carbide's motion to dismiss, so Louise Brannan's personal injury claims for her late husband's estate could proceed in the second action.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske (Texas Court of Appeals, 2012). The en banc court affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, so the Emmites' asbestosis wrongful-death claims could go forward.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed denial of a directed verdict on the warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on warning because the jury instruction was misleading; Union Carbide won in part and Aubin lost in part.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on his warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on the warning claim because of a misleading jury instruction.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Fields (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2012). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty-fault defense and affirmed the denial of Union Carbide's summary judgment motion, so the Fieldses won both rulings and the defendants lost.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Font (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 2020). The court reversed the final judgment for Paula Font against Union Carbide and remanded for a third trial, because excluded affidavits and a flawed learned intermediary instruction were errors, while rejecting Union Carbide's causation argument and Font's cross-appeal on Johns Manville.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Nix (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2014). The court affirmed the compensatory verdict for Nix against Union Carbide, reversed the punitive damages award and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages only, vacated the attorney's fees award, and affirmed the special master fee and 8% postjudgment interest.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Smith (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2009). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Oliver and Peggy Smith and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Union Carbide and Hexion, holding there was no evidence of Union Carbide's control and that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy barred the claims against Hexion.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal denied Union Carbide's petition for writ of mandate, leaving in place the trial court's ruling that John Washington's Texas deposition could be used in the California wrongful death action; Union Carbide lost and the Washington family won.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (Texas Supreme Court, 2014). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, held that Dr. Prince's report did not satisfy the safety valve requirement and that Chapter 90 was not unconstitutionally retroactive as applied, and rendered judgment dismissing the Emmites' wrongful death suit against Union Carbide.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2012). The en banc court affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, so the Emmites' wrongful death claims could go forward; Union Carbide lost.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2011). The court of appeals affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, ruling for the Emmites, though it found Dr. Prince's reports did not meet the pulmonary function testing requirement.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Torres (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, 2019). The court affirmed the judgment for Oscar and Dora Torres against Union Carbide Corporation, but reversed the judgment against Garlock's successor GST Settlement Facility and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Garlock.
• United Insurance v. France Refractories (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1996). After a retrial on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the court rejected J.H. France's laches defense, found that France fraudulently obtained the excess policy, and declared the $5,000,000 policy void ab initio, so United National Insurance Co. won and France lost.
• United Nat. Ins. Co. v. JH France Refractories Co. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1992). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's compulsory non-suit, holding that United National Insurance's suit to rescind the policy was time-barred, so the insured refractory manufacturers (J.H. France and others) prevailed.
• United Nat. Ins. v. France Refractories (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1995). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's affirmance of a nonsuit against the insurer United National and remanded to the trial court to decide timeliness under the doctrine of laches, a ruling for United over France Refractories and the other appellees.
• United Refining Co. v. Dorrion (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2023). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the executor's wrongful-death claim against United Refining was discharged in the 1988 bankruptcy plan, subject to a limited remand on whether the executor forfeited an argument about the plan's definition of claim.
• United Refining Company v. Dorrion (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2023). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the executor's wrongful-death claim against United Refining was discharged in its 1988 reorganization, subject to a limited remand on whether the executor forfeited an argument about the plan's definition of claim.
• United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American Re-Insurance Company (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court denied American Re's, American Home's and the ECRA defendants' motions for summary judgment, and granted USF&G summary judgment against American Re ($202,507,261.50 plus interest) and against ECRA and its pool members ($59,786,218.81 plus interest).
• United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Ulbricht (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part both USF&G's and the Ulbricht/PM Northwest defendants' summary judgment motions, holding USF&G breached its duty to defend and acted in bad faith and is estopped from denying coverage for the unsatisfied covenant judgment, while denying realignment and partly granting sealing.
• United States Fidelity and Guaranty v. Ulbricht (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted in part and denied in part the Ulbrichts' and PM Northwest's motion to strike USF&G's claims-handling expert Allan Windt, striking his opinions on the reasonableness of USF&G's conduct, and denied USF&G's motion to exclude the Ulbrichts' expert Charles Miller.
• United States v. Croft (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1984). The Seventh Circuit affirmed William Croft's conviction for converting to his own use the services of a research assistant paid with EPA grant funds, so the United States prevailed.
• United States v. Grace (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2006). The court denied the defendants' (W. R. Grace and its executives') motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment for pre-indictment delay, ruling for the United States.
• United States v. Reserve Mining Company (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 1974). After a long trial, the district court enjoined Reserve Mining's discharges of amphibole fibers into Lake Superior and the air at Silver Bay, held its parents Armco and Republic responsible, and ruled for the United States, the states and the intervening plaintiffs against the defendants.
• Unterberg v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The court granted ExxonMobil's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the widow's Jones Act, seaworthiness and maintenance-and-cure claims against it, because ExxonMobil was neither the decedent's employer nor the owner of the vessels.
• Unterleitner v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2016). The federal court granted plaintiff Unterleitner's motion to remand to Alameda County Superior Court and ordered removing defendant O'Reilly to pay $4,200 in attorneys' fees, finding removal improper.
• Untermann v. D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for painting contractor D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., against plaintiff Desin (succeeded on appeal by his daughter Cheryl Untermann).
• Uop, LLC v. Kozak (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2010). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's refusal to dismiss the Kozak Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim against UOP for lack of a certificate of merit, affirmed the rest of the order, and remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim; UOP won and the Kozak Plaintiffs lost.
• Upsher v. Grosse Pointe Public School System (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2002). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Grosse Pointe school system, its board and the individual officials, rejecting the custodians' § 1983 and Michigan intentional-tort claims.
• Uram v. Abex Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1990). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Asbestos Claims Facility defendants, holding that both Joseph Uram's personal injury claim and Virginia Uram's loss of consortium claim were time-barred.
• Urbach v. the Okonite Company (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 2017). The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Jean Urbach against Okonite, rejecting all four of Okonite's challenges: the evidence rulings, the causation challenge, the Wisconsin damages cap, and the trust assignment request.
• Uribes v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2015). The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the wrongful death action to Santa Clara County Superior Court, finding BASF failed to prove E.T. Horn was fraudulently joined, and denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees and costs.
• US Fid. & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Ins. Co. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of about $420 million for USF&G against reinsurers American Re and ECRA (and its pool members), holding they must follow USF&G's loss allocation and that no issue of fact existed on the retention; one justice dissented.
• US Gypsum Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 5th Division, 1994). The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the finding that the insurers must indemnify U.S. Gypsum for the eight school-building asbestos property damage cases and the exhaustion ruling for excess insurers, but rejected the discovery trigger and the multiple-occurrence ruling and remanded for a continuous trigger and a single occurrence per policy period.
• US Gypsum v. Baltimore (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1994). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the City of Baltimore's compensatory damages judgment against Asbestospray Corp. but reversed the $2,000,000 punitive damages award for insufficient evidence of actual malice.
• US v. Fillers (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2012). The court denied the defendants' objections to a nine-level sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2Q1.2(b)(2), ruling for the United States and against Fillers, Wood and Mathis.
• US v. Grace (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2009). On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court admitted the government's experts Dr. Weis and Dr. Lemen under Rule 702 but excluded the ATSDR Report and Peipins Study, and it granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to add new reliance materials, barring Libby sampling data first disclosed after August 23, 2006.
• US v. Grace (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2006). In a criminal case against W.R. Grace and its officers, the court denied the defendants' motion to exclude health studies and product tests, granted the government's motions to exclude defense experts Biles and most of Rodricks' testimony, and reserved ruling on expert Eder until trial.
• US v. Grace (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2005). The district court denied the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars in its entirety, ruling for the United States and against W.R. Grace and the seven individual defendants.
• US v. Hugo Key and Son, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1989). The district court granted summary judgment on liability to the United States against Hugo Key and Son, Inc. on all five Clean Air Act and asbestos NESHAP claims, leaving civil penalties and injunctive relief for trial.
• US v. Pearson (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2001). The Ninth Circuit affirmed Thomas Pearson's Clean Air Act conviction and sentence for supervising asbestos removal in violation of work practice standards, rejecting his challenges to the jury instructions, the limits on his direct testimony, and the sentencing enhancements.
• US v. Silver (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2018). The district court denied Sheldon Silver's motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment on retrial, ruling for the United States on the limitations, quid pro quo, Hobbs Act and forfeiture challenges.
• US v. Silver (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2017). The Second Circuit vacated Sheldon Silver's convictions on all counts (honest services fraud, Hobbs Act extortion, money laundering) because the jury instruction on "official act" was erroneous under McDonnell and the error was not harmless, and remanded; it rejected his sufficiency challenges.
• US v. Silver (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The court granted in part and denied in part Sheldon Silver's motion, continuing his bail pending appeal because McDonnell raised a substantial question, and staying the fine and forfeiture only partly, on condition of monthly payments and no dissipation of assets.
• US v. Silver (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The court denied Sheldon Silver's Rule 29 motion for acquittal and Rule 33 motion for a new trial, leaving his convictions for honest services fraud, extortion and money laundering in place for the United States.