Asbestos Cases A–Z: Z

21 decisions whose name begins with Z.

• Zalinka v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 1995). The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for plaintiffs John Zalinka and his wife against Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, which lost its appeal.
• Zanowick v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2017). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the Zanowicks' motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, rejecting Baxter Healthcare and Fisher Scientific's argument that Rule 25(a)(1) required dismissal with prejudice.
• Zenak v. Police Athletic League OF Philadelphia (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 2016). The Commonwealth Court affirmed denial of Officer Zenak's post-trial motion, which left the nonsuits on his negligence and False Claims Ordinance claims in place. It reversed denial of the City of Philadelphia's post-trial motions because the whistleblower claim should not have gone to a jury, and remanded for the trial court to make its own findings or hold a new bench trial.
• Zenson v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1993). The court granted Garlock's motion for a directed verdict and Owens Corning Fiberglas's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's case, ruling for the defendants because plaintiff did not prove exposure to their products.
• Zeringue v. Allis-Chambers Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted plaintiff Howard Zeringue's motion to remand and sent the case back to state court, finding that Crane Co. had not shown enough evidence of government discretion to support federal officer removal.
• Zicklin v. Bergdorf Goodman Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment because conflicting expert opinions on general and specific causation raised fact issues; the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Zickuhr v. Ericsson, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 6th Division, 2011). The appellate court affirmed the denial of Ericsson's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' jury verdict for Campbell's estate in place.
• Zielinski v. AP Green Indus., Inc. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2003). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Firebrick Engineers and Powers Holdings and remanded, finding genuine fact disputes for the Zielinski plaintiffs on whether Firebrick supplied asbestos products to Ladish and whether Zielinski was exposed to them.
• Zimko v. American Cyanamid (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2005). The appeals court reversed the judgment against Tate & Lyle because workers' compensation exclusivity barred it, affirmed liability and the survival award against American Cyanamid, and cut the wrongful death award against American Cyanamid to 50% by allocating fault equally between the two companies.
• Zimmerman v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Rheem Manufacturing Company's motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against Rheem go forward.
• Zinc Corp. OF America v. Reeder (Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, 2nd Division, 2007). The Court of Civil Appeals sustained the three-judge Workers' Compensation Court panel's order awarding death benefits to Naomi Reeder, so Zinc Corporation of America and Ace American lost.
• Zoas v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court denied Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, so plaintiffs Ann and Christos Zoas' claims against them go forward.
• Zuniga v. Masse Contracting, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing with prejudice all claims, including the physical-injury and asbestos-exposure claims, except the plaintiffs' race discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and dismissed Craig Masse from the case.
• Zupan v. Industrial Com. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 1986). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's reversal of the Industrial Commission's denial of benefits, ruling for claimant Paul Zupan and against his employer National Steel.
• Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2019). The court denied Covil Corporation's and the North Carolina claimants' motions to dismiss for failure to join the receiver and the South Carolina claimants and to abstain under Colorado River, leaving the alternative motions to stay under advisement; Zurich and the other insurers prevailed on these motions.
• Zurich American Insurance Company v. Covil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The court granted summary judgment to insurers Zurich and USF&G on how the Finch judgment is allocated among insurers and Covil by time on the risk, denied Covil's and the individual defendants' cross-motions on that point, and declined jurisdiction over all other declaratory claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.
• Zurich American Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North America (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2018). On reconsideration, the court vacated its earlier pro rata ruling, granted summary judgment to Anheuser-Busch against Zurich's equitable claims, and reopened the Zurich v. INA dispute for further briefing.
• Zurich American Insurance Company v. Insurance Company of North America (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The court granted summary judgment to INA, finding its pro rata share of the $1.5 million settlement fell below its deductibles, and denied Zurich's and Anheuser-Busch's summary judgment motions, leaving Zurich's claim against Anheuser-Busch pending.
• Zurich American v. Insurance Co. of North America (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2019). The court granted Insurance Company of North America's summary judgment motion, denied Zurich American's, and dismissed Zurich's contribution, subrogation and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice.
• Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 1986). The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's coverage rulings in favor of Raymark, but modified and reversed in part for the insurers, holding that Zurich and the pre-1966 insurers had no duty to defend after exhausting their limits and clarifying that excess insurer Northbrook only pays defense costs against its limits.
• Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court, 1987). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: coverage is triggered by bodily injury, sickness or disease during a policy period; insurers need not defend after exhausting limits; no pro rata allocation; no jury right. Zurich, Federal and Commercial Union won on the defense-duty issues, and Raymark won on the trigger and allocation issues.