Asbestos Cases A–Z: V

70 decisions whose name begins with V.

• Vadi v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, so the wrongful death claims by Mrs. Bou's daughters against Georgia-Pacific continue.
• Valdez v. Superior Court of San Diego County (California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, 1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiffs' writ petition and ordered the superior court to vacate its order setting trial beyond 120 days and to set trial within 120 days of May 22, 2009.
• Valentine v. Borg-Warner Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2009). The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, rejecting Borg-Warner's fraudulent joinder argument, and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of White County, Arkansas.
• Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy Co. (Iowa Supreme Court, 2009). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for MidAmerican Energy and Interstate Power and Light, holding the plant owners owed no duty to warn the spouse of an independent contractor's employee, so Van Fossen lost.
• Van Winkle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1997). The appellate court reversed the jury verdicts for the Van Winkle and Hicks plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas because the trial court did not properly answer the jury's question on conspiracy, and remanded for a new trial.
• Vanaman v. Dap, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2009). The en banc Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal and DAP, ruling against Robert Vanaman and the estate of Violet Vanaman.
• Vanhooser v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal granted the wife's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its summary judgment for Hennessy Industries on her loss of consortium claim and to deny the motion.
• Vanhoy v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2018). The magistrate judge recommended denying American International Industries' motion to dismiss the gross negligence and punitive damages claims (a loss for the defendant) and granting it as to the civil conspiracy claim (a win for the defendant).
• Vanni v. Honeywell International, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of $1,970,716 that the jury's verdict produced for Barbara Vanni and her sons against Honeywell International, finding substantial evidence of exposure and causation.
• Vantosh v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court vacated the Special Master's recommendation, ordered Dow Corning to answer plaintiffs' standard interrogatories and produce a corporate witness, and denied Dow Corning's summary judgment motion without prejudice to renewal after discovery, so plaintiffs won.
• Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants (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 because plaintiffs had no evidence that any decedent was exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler's product or work.
• Varner v. Ford Motor Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2007). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Yvonne Varner's workers' compensation death claim was filed too late.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court denied Armstrong International's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's untimely request to reconsider the exclusion of Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's report, and denied Armstrong's motion to exclude the Sanders Declaration (denied as moot for the other two exhibits).
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking Mr. Varney's mesothelioma to its products.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The district court granted Parker-Hannifin's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Donald and Maria Varney and dismissed Parker-Hannifin from the case, because plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking its products to Mr. Varney's mesothelioma.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' belated request for reconsideration, denied Warren's motion to strike as moot, and dismissed Warren from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted Weir Valves' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' request for reconsideration of the order excluding Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's opinion, and dismissed Weir Valves from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The court granted defendant John Crane Inc.'s summary judgment motion and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of causation; its motion to strike was denied as moot.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The district court denied defendant BNS Company's motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature, letting plaintiffs Donald and Maria Varney continue discovery, and also denied BNS's motion to strike.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court granted Fryer-Knowles, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it, because the company was not incorporated until after the plaintiff's last alleged exposure and the plaintiffs did not respond.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court denied the motions of Taco, Inc. and Aurora Pump Company to dismiss for failure to state a claim, personal jurisdiction and standing, and to strike the prejudgment interest request, so the Varneys won at this stage. The jurisdiction, standing and interest rulings were without prejudice.
• Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants (Goodyear, Crosby Valve, John Crane, Flowserve, Weir Valves, Warren Pumps) against Maria Varney, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Donald Varney's declaration.
• VaSalle v. Celotex Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1987). The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant asbestos-insulation companies and remanded, holding the estate's lung cancer claim was not shown to be time-barred.
• Vasura v. Acands (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2000). The court granted plaintiff Vasura's motion to remand to New York Supreme Court, holding that defendant Atlas Turner's removal under the FSIA and on diversity grounds was improper.
• Vaughan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1981). The Fourth Circuit vacated summary judgment for the asbestos manufacturers (Johns-Manville and others) and remanded for further proceedings, holding admiralty jurisdiction was present and laches rather than the Virginia two-year statute governed timeliness, so the widow's claim was revived.
• Vaughn v. Farrell Lines, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1991). The Fourth Circuit affirmed that Foster Wheeler owed the shipowners indemnity for their settlement of the seaman's death claim, but reversed the amount and remanded for a reduction to cover only vessels with Foster Wheeler boilers.
• Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because directed verdicts were otherwise proper.
• Vaughn v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 1989). After a non-jury trial on the shipowners' third-party indemnity claim, the court entered judgment for the Shipowners (Amoco, Farrell Lines, Gulf, Keystone, Isco, Texaco) against Foster Wheeler for $72,883.17, with no reduction for the other manufacturers' settlement.
• Vedros v. Grumman (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court denied the plaintiffs' motions to exclude the expert testimony of Danny Joyce and Dennis Paustenbach, so the defendants (Avondale and Amchem) won the motions.
• Vedros v. Grumman (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court denied Continental Insurance Company's motion in limine and ruled that Sally Gros Vedros's earlier deposition testimony could be used at trial against Continental, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Vedros v. Grumman (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs had no claim against Avondale under Louisiana Civil Code articles 1821-1823 based on its insurance buy-back agreements.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff children's Lejeune (bystander) mental anguish damages claim against Avondale, Eagle, Eagle's insurers and McCarty.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to exclude Dr. Kraus: he was qualified and could testify on diagnosis and general causation, but could not give specific causation opinions based on the "every exposure above background" theory.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to strike opinions of Plaintiffs' substitute expert Dr. Kraus, striking several opinions and his rebuttal report to Dr. Stockman and keeping the rest.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike seven opinions of Westinghouse's substitute expert, Dr. Gail Stockman, because they went beyond or contradicted the opinions of the deceased original expert, Dr. Sawyer; the plaintiffs won and Westinghouse lost.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court denied Amchem's motion to exclude plaintiffs' industrial hygienist expert Frank Parker, so plaintiffs may present his testimony at trial; Amchem lost, and its motion for leave to reply was also denied.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and kept the case in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, ruling for the defendants (Amchem, Continental, Westinghouse, Avondale and the Avondale Interests) and against the plaintiffs.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Westinghouse's summary judgment motion on the turbine claims, dismissing them with prejudice, and denied it on the micarta claims, which go forward.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against GE with prejudice, because the plaintiffs lacked evidence that GE supplied or attached any asbestos-containing material.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Avondale's and the Avondale Interests' motions for partial summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' intentional tort, fraud and conspiracy claims.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and motion to strike affidavits, finding the defendants' (CBS, Foster Wheeler, GE) federal officer removal timely and proper.
• Vega v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and cross-claims, leaving Glenda Vega's claims against it for trial.
• Vellucci v. Borg-Warner Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied Hennessey Industries' (successor to Ammco Tools) motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiff Linda Vellucci's claims against it for trial.
• Vellucci v. Borg-Warner Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The trial court denied Trane US, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Velluccis' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs' claims against Trane continue.
• Vesper v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2016). The federal district court granted summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps and Sid Harvey Industries because Vesper offered no evidence tying them to his asbestos exposure, and denied summary judgment to DAP and Warren Pumps, leaving Vesper's claims against them for trial.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted Exxon Mobil's motion for summary judgment against the wife and daughter of Ronald Viale, finding they lacked evidence that Exxon was negligent as a premises owner or hirer of contractors at the Benicia Refinery.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted SPX Cooling Technologies' motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs (the wife and daughter of Ronald Viale) because they lacked evidence that Viale was exposed to asbestos from a Marley cooling tower.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs because they lacked admissible evidence that Ronald Viale was exposed to a Foster Wheeler boiler.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The district court granted Foster Wheeler LLC's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, the widow and daughter of Ronald Viale, because they lacked admissible evidence that Viale was exposed to a Foster Wheeler product.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2020). The court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs because they offered no evidence that Ronald Viale was exposed to a product containing asbestos supplied by Union Carbide.