Asbestos Cases A–Z: W

183 decisions whose name begins with W.

• Wagers v. Sgl Carbon, LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court denied SGL Carbon's motion for summary judgment, so the claim by Patricia Wagers over her husband's mesothelioma death goes forward on the inherently dangerous activity theory.
• Wagner v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied defendant American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Michael Wagner's claims over his mesothelioma proceed to trial.
• Wagner v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court denied U.S. Steel's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiff Gerald Wagner's mesothelioma case stays in New York County.
• Wagner v. Apex Marine Ship Management Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment dismissing Wagner's Jones Act claims against the Apex Marine and related shipping defendants and remanded, holding his asbestosis claim was not time-barred by his earlier pleural disease diagnosis.
• Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, 2012). The court reversed the judgment against Simpson Timber for lack of proof its tile contained asbestos, affirmed the judgment against Bondex and the damages amount, and remanded to reallocate Simpson Timber's 35% of fault between Bondex and Conwed.
• Wagner v. Standard Steel, Lcc (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2017). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Standard Steel, LCC, holding that the 2002 Section 363 bankruptcy sale order barred the Wagners' successor tort claims.
• Waguespack v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Lamorak Insurance Co.'s motion (joined by Huntington Ingalls) to enforce a stay, staying and administratively closing the entire case until September 12, 2021, over the plaintiffs' objection to staying the whole action.
• Waguespack v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Huntington Ingalls and Lamorak (Avondale) timely removed the case under the federal officer removal statute and did not waive removal.
• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2018). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against the Waites.
• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2016). The court denied Ford's motion for summary judgment and its motion to exclude Plaintiffs' causation experts and historian, denied Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Ford's experts (while barring untimely expert analysis), and denied Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Wajer v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2004). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company against Anthony and Frances Wajer, holding BGE owed no duty under Restatement §§ 414 or 343 and that the other theories were not preserved.
• Walashek v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2016). The district court granted summary judgment to Lamons Gasket Company and Parker-Hannifin Corporation because the plaintiffs lacked evidence that Walashek was exposed to asbestos from their products, and ordered final judgment for those defendants.
• Walashek v. Air Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2016). The court denied Foster Wheeler's motions (joined by other defendants) to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Fishbein and Dr. Holstein, so plaintiffs may present both experts.
• Walker v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied defendant Meriden Molded Plastics' motion to dismiss for improper service and extended plaintiffs' time to serve it until September 9, 2013, so plaintiffs prevailed.
• Walker v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied defendant Reichhold Chemicals' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery is completed, so plaintiffs (the Walkers) prevailed for now.
• Walker v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2023). The appeals court affirmed the jury verdict and the trial court's judgment for William Walker against Level 3 Holdings, Inc. (formerly Peter Kiewit & Sons), including its 11/21 virile share of the damages.
• Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Ingersoll-Rand, Warren Pumps and Blackmer Pump, so the plaintiff's claims against all three go forward.
• Walker v. Viad Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The district court denied the plaintiff executor's motion to strike Viad Corp's late-filed answer and its successor-in-interest defense, and ordered discovery reopened on that defense only.
• Walker v. Viad Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The court denied Viad Corp's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim against Viad as alleged successor to Griscom Russell went forward; the court excluded the decedent's deposition but found enough other evidence for a jury.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, leaving in place the jury verdict for William and Kathleen Busch against the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust and rejecting the Trust's challenges.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City jury verdict and judgment for William Busch and his wife Kathleen against the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, which lost on all five of its claims of error.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Busches against the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, holding that the evidence of causation was sufficient and that the evidentiary and jury-instruction rulings were not erroneous.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Carter (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2013). The Court of Special Appeals reversed and vacated the judgments for the fifteen use plaintiffs against the Wallace & Gale Trust as time-barred, reversed the Hewitt judgments and remanded for a new trial on apportionment, and affirmed the plaintiffs' judgments in the Carter, James and Lawrence cases.
• Wallace v. Trane Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2021). The Superior Court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment on all counts because the Wallace plaintiffs failed to show that Mr. Wallace was exposed to asbestos from an original GE product.
• Wallace v. Trane Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2020). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on all counts because the Wallace plaintiffs offered insufficient evidence that Mr. Wallace was exposed to an asbestos-containing product originating with Crane.
• Waller v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1991). The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants Pittsburgh Corning, John Crane and the other defendants, holding Larry Waller's action was barred by the Kansas statute of repose.
• Wallic v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 1999). The court granted plaintiff Sondra Wallic's motion and awarded her $3,433.57 in fees and costs against Pittsburgh Corning for the improper removal. It also awarded Rule 11 fees and costs against attorney Robert Hamblett and Hassard Bonnington LLP.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2023). The court denied Ford's renewed motion for directed verdict, granted its motion to amend the judgment so that $6,888,500 in settlements offset the $275,000 verdict, interest and costs (leaving $0 owed), and granted in part and denied in part its objection to costs.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of defendants Abex and Strick to reconsider its expert rulings: it corrected a clerical error and clarified that Herfel and McCloskey may authenticate Navy documents, but it kept its exclusion of their other testimony as duplicative.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court denied plaintiff Laura Walls's motion for leave to supplement the record with a supplemental expert report from Dr. Holstein in opposition to the defendants' Daubert motions.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion to reconsider the earlier partial denial of summary judgment, so Plaintiff Laura Walls's claims against Ford remained pending.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted defendant Pneumo Abex's motion in limine and Rule 702 motion, excluding documents, lay testimony and expert testimony about the mouse tumor data from Saranac Laboratory Experiment 774, a ruling against plaintiff Laura Walls.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions to exclude expert testimony before trial: plaintiff's experts may testify that each defendant's products contributed to and caused Mr. Walls' mesothelioma, but not that any exposure was a legal 'substantial factor'.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defenses, so the plaintiff won on assumption of risk, sophisticated user, workers' compensation exclusivity and several others, while the manufacturers kept contributory negligence, product misuse and intervening cause (in part) for trial.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part six defendants' summary judgment motions and denied Abex's motion entirely: product liability claims survived against all seven defendants, punitive damages claims were dismissed against ZF, Carlisle, Strick, ArvinMeritor and Navistar, and loss of consortium was dismissed against Strick and Ford.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted summary judgment to DCo and Eaton on all claims, and to Morse Tec on the punitive damages claim, because plaintiff Laura Walls did not oppose the motions or present supporting evidence.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to give Abex and the joining defendants the grids and test results from her consulting expert's tissue analysis but not his opinions; the motions to join were granted and the parties were told to confer on expert fees.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motions to compel and for sanctions against CRA Trailers: CRA must give the plaintiff its Sales Index and pay part of her attorney's fees, but need not disclose net worth or former employees' contact information.
• Walmach v. Wheeler (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the $2.66 million judgment for Walmach's widow and daughters against Foster Wheeler, rejecting its challenges to the denial of JNOV and a new trial.
• Walston v. Boeing Company (Washington Supreme Court, 2014). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Boeing, ruling against Walston and his estate.
• Walston v. Boeing Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Boeing's summary judgment motion and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Boeing, ruling against Walston.
• Walton v. OneBeacon Ins. Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for OneBeacon Insurance Company, which was entitled to subrogation to its insured Powell's $163,589.37 appellate costs judgment against Edward Walton, and affirmed denial of Walton's new trial motion.
• Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Warren Pumps, Inc. and against Mary Jo Wangen, individually and as personal representative of William Wangen's estate, and affirmed the order on reconsideration.
• Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order staying William and Mary Jo Wangen's California asbestos lawsuit on forum non conveniens grounds, so the defendants won and the Wangens must pursue the case in Washington.
• Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2013). The district court struck the plaintiff's late expert declaration and granted Honeywell's motion to reconsider, entering summary judgment for Honeywell because the plaintiff could not show causation under Virginia law as stated in Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer.
• Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 2014). The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's exclusion of the plaintiff's late expert declaration and its grant of summary judgment for Honeywell, the successor to Bendix, against the estate of John Tyler.
• Ward v. Goss-Jewett Co. OF Northern California (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Goss-Jewett's motion for relief from default and default judgment, but modified the judgment to cut the damages award from $5,388,650.87 to $5,120,898, so plaintiffs largely won and Goss-Jewett won only the reduction.
• Ward v. Wcab (sun Refining) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1991). The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, which let Sun Refining receive subrogation reimbursement of $107,739.68 from the widow's third-party settlements; Dorothy Ward lost.
• Warren v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2021). The court granted Plaintiff Cynthia Warren's motion to remand, finding Westinghouse's federal officer removal untimely, and returned the case to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.
• Warren v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied defendant J-M Manufacturing's motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, which held that J-M waived attorney-client privilege over both versions of its 1983 memo, so the plaintiff estate prevailed on the motion.