Asbestos Cases A–Z: W

183 decisions whose name begins with W.

• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Winelands' negligence and strict liability claims, and denied the plaintiffs' motion on Crane Co.'s affirmative defenses as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted summary judgment to Puget Sound Commerce Center (formerly Todd Shipyards) on the negligence and strict liability claims, ruling against the Wineland plaintiffs.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Carrier Corporation's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims because they did not show a triable issue on whether exposure to Carrier products substantially contributed to Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Imo Industries' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it because they lacked evidence that exposure to Imo products was a substantial contributing factor in Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma and death.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The district court granted Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, and denied the plaintiffs' motion on Cleaver-Brooks's affirmative defenses as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of Wineland's estate and wife because they lacked evidence that Warren Pumps products were a substantial contributing cause of his mesothelioma.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Powell, because they lacked evidence that exposure to Powell's products substantially contributed to Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma; the plaintiffs' own motion on Powell's affirmative defenses was denied as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Alfa Laval's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence and strict liability claims, because they had no evidence that asbestos from Alfa Laval products was a substantial contributing factor in Mr. Wineland's mesothelioma.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The district court granted Robertshaw Controls' motion for summary judgment against the Wineland plaintiffs, and denied plaintiffs' motion on Robertshaw's affirmative defenses as moot.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2021). The court granted Anchor/Darling Valve Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding they lacked evidence of substantial exposure to Anchor/Darling products or of a duty to warn about third-party replacement parts.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The court denied Todd Shipyard's (Puget Sound Commerce Center's) Daubert motion, so plaintiffs' experts Moore, Paskal, Zhang and Ay may testify.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2020). The Court did not rule on Puget Sound Commerce Center's Daubert motion; it renoted the motion and allowed plaintiffs to file a sur-reply on the reliability of the experts' substantial contributing factor opinions.
• Wines v. Abb, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to Delaware state court, finding Rockwell's removal timely but its federal officer removal basis unproven.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Honeywell and Ingersoll Rand and against the plaintiff, because the evidence did not show frequent, regular, proximate exposure to either company's asbestos-containing product.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to nine defendants (John Crane, Flowserve, Carver Pump, Velan Valve, Cleaver-Brooks, Sterling Fluid Systems, FMC, Crane Co. and Borg-Warner Morse Tec) and against the plaintiff, who filed no response.
• Winter v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Lisa Winter's motion for a joint trial of this action with Morie v Air & Liquid Systems and Toscani v AO Smith Water Products Co., over the objections of defendants Jenkins Bros., Burnham LLC, Milton Roy LLC and ECR International.
• Wise v. Alcoa, Inc. (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2013). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of the estate's workers' compensation claim against Alcoa, finding the plaintiff failed to prove that asbestos caused the decedent's esophageal cancer.
• Wisener v. Revlon Consumer Products Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2022). The federal district court granted Naomi Wisener's motion to remand to Harris County state court because Revlon failed to show complete diversity or that the non-diverse defendants HEB and Brookshire were improperly joined, and ordered defendants to pay her costs and fees.
• Witte v. Algoma Hardwoods, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The court denied T.M. Cobb Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal after further discovery, and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to compel jurisdictional discovery and a corporate deposition of Cobb.
• Wittman v. Coty, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Coty, Inc. against John and Barbara Wittman because they lacked evidence that Barbara was exposed to asbestos in Coty's face powder, and their expert's declaration was properly excluded for lack of chain of custody.
• Wommack v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. (Montana Workers' Comp. Court, 2017). The Workers' Compensation Court held Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., the insurer at risk during Wommack's final years at Cenex, liable for his asbestos-related occupational disease, awarded him costs, and denied his requests for attorney fees and a penalty.
• Woo v. General Electric Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the Woo Estate's claims against General Electric and remanded for trial, because fact issues existed on GE's duty to warn and on causation.
• Wood v. Crane Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2014). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand of the Joyner estate's gasket claims against Crane Co. to Maryland state court, so the plaintiff prevailed and Crane lost its bid to stay in federal court.
• Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District, 1987). The appeals court reversed the deputy commissioner's finding that the 1973 exposure at Harry Harmon Insulation was not the last injurious exposure, but affirmed that the widow's death benefits claim was barred by the 350-week limit, remanding for further proceedings.
• Woodard v. Crane Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Crane Co., so the plaintiffs lost their jury verdict against Crane on the failure-to-warn claim.
• Woody v. AW Chesterton Company (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants as to claims from pre-release asbestos exposure, which the 1980 release barred, but left Rebecca Woody's claims from post-release exposure standing.
• Woolard v. Carrier Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The federal district court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Schneider Electric Systems (Foxboro), Chicago Bridge & Iron and Chicago Bridge & Iron (Delaware), dismissing the Woolards' claims against them.
• WR Grace & Co. v. Csr Ltd. (Illinois Appellate Court, 3rd District, 1996). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of CSR Limited's motion to dismiss, holding that Illinois courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over CSR in Helen Ensey's wrongful death suit.
• WR Grace & Co.—Conn. v. Dougherty (Florida District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, 1994). The appeals court affirmed the final judgment for the Dougherty plaintiffs against W.R. Grace and Owens-Corning, rejecting their challenges to the jury instructions, the deposition evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence of Grace's negligence.
• Wright v. 3M Co. (Washington Supreme Court, 2023). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing ExxonMobil's requested § 343A "known or obvious" jury instruction, so the jury verdict for Wright's estate against ExxonMobil stood.
• Wright v. 3M Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2021). The court affirmed the jury's $4 million verdict for Wright against ExxonMobil (Mobil), but vacated the judgment and remanded for a new settlement reasonableness hearing because the settling parties never provided the full settlement agreements.
• Wright v. Allied Signal, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2008). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Asten and remanded, holding the record was enough for a jury to infer that Mr. Wright's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to Asten's dryer felts; Theresa Wright won and Asten lost.
• Wygant v. General Electric Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2015). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for General Electric, Hunter Sales and Reading Crane, holding the administratrix's wrongful death action was time-barred.