Maryland Court of Appeals: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 31 asbestos decisions from the Maryland Court of Appeals (1978–2022). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Maryland
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Pifer (2022). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, which had reversed the exclusion of the eBay chalk samples and the summary judgment for Irwin, so the Pifer Estate won and the case was remanded.
• Pinner v. Pinner (2020). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, which had reversed the default judgment against Mona Pinner for lack of personal jurisdiction, so Mona won and her stepson Randy Pinner lost.
• Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company (2020). Affirmed the circuit court's partial summary judgment for Zurich, holding that the judgment Rossello won against Mitchell must be allocated pro rata by Zurich's time on the risk (1974-1985), not paid in full by Zurich.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (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.
• Duffy v. CBS Corporation (2018). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals and the grant of summary judgment for CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), holding the statute of repose did not bar the Estate of James Piper's claims, and remanded so the circuit court's judgment could be reversed.
• RJ Reynolds Tobacco v. Stidham (2016). The Court of Appeals of Maryland held there was a final judgment but dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as moot, so the tobacco companies' dismissal from the asbestos case stood; it also commented on joinder for guidance in future cases.
• May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2015). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for the pump manufacturers (Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps, IMO Industries) and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for Ruth May.
• Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court, reinstated the jury verdicts for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company, and reversed the trial court's judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, which won back the jury's verdict.
• Georgia Pacific v. Farrar (2013). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals and the Baltimore City Circuit Court judgment of over $5 million for Jocelyn Farrar, holding that Georgia Pacific owed her no duty to warn in 1968-69, so Georgia Pacific won.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mr. Saville against Scapa on causation, the cross-claim JNOV and the effect of his admissions, but reversed on bankruptcy trust offsets and remanded for discovery of the trust settlement agreements so the verdict could be reduced.
• Csr, Limited v. Taylor (2009). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals and directed it to affirm the Baltimore City Circuit Court's dismissal of CSR, Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction, so CSR won and the estates lost.
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Benjamin (2006). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the intermediate appellate court: the survival action against Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide was time-barred, but summary judgment for the defendants on the wrongful death action was error.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for John and Shirley Gianotti against Owens-Illinois, rejecting its challenges to the release, the noneconomic damages cap, the loss of consortium claim and the verdict reduction.
• Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2005). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Garlock leave to withdraw its deemed admissions, so the plaintiffs kept the verdict for now, and it remanded for the intermediate court to decide the remaining issues.
• Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc. (2004). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and the Baltimore City Circuit Court, which had compelled arbitration of the plaintiffs' settlement dispute; the CCR and its member companies won and the plaintiffs lost.
• Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and the Circuit Court judgments for the Scribners against John Crane and Garlock, holding the non-economic damages cap did not apply to the survival action.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Pransky (2002). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals' judgment upholding the $9,188,000 jury verdict for Lisa Pransky and her husband against Georgia-Pacific, finding the causation evidence sufficient and the non-economic damages cap inapplicable.
• Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. James (1999). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals' dismissal of Pittsburgh Corning's and Owens Corning's appeals, holding that denial of their motions to dismiss for inconvenient forum could not be appealed immediately, so the Virginia plaintiffs (James and Wise) prevailed on the appealability question.
• Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998). The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the trial court's apportionment of damages in the Grimshaw and Granski cases, ruling for Owens Corning and Porter Hayden against the plaintiffs, and remanded for further proceedings.
• ACandS Inc. v. Asner (1996). The Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Special Appeals, vacated the Baltimore City judgments for the plaintiffs against ACandS and Porter Hayden, and remanded for a new trial on liability for compensatory damages only, holding the punitive damages evidence insufficient.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the jury's liability findings and compensatory awards for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and Porter Hayden, but reversed the $1.5 million punitive damages award against Owens-Corning in the Scruggs case.
• ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995). The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory judgments for McNiel, Russell and Leaf against Pittsburgh Corning, ACandS and Porter Hayden, except it reversed McNiel's judgment against Porter Hayden. It also reversed all punitive damages awards for insufficient evidence and dismissed Owens-Illinois's appeal.
• US Gypsum v. Baltimore (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.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the compensatory judgments for the Balbos and Knuckles plaintiffs against Eagle-Picher and the other defendants, except that it reversed the Knuckles judgment against Porter Hayden for lack of proof, and it ordered a new trial on punitive damages against Owens-Illinois and Eagle-Picher.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the compensatory verdicts for workers Armstrong and Wood against Owens-Illinois, but reversed the punitive damages awards and remanded for new trials limited to punitive damages.
• Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty (1991). The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment for Maryland Casualty and remanded for a declaratory judgment that Mitchell, the insured, was entitled to a defense and indemnity because coverage is triggered at least by exposure to its asbestos products during the policy period.
• Smith v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1985). The Court of Appeals of Maryland answered two certified questions: workers' compensation § 58 does not toll limitations until an award is made, and a later colon cancer claim can be a separate cause of action accruing on discovery if the cancer is a latent disease distinct from asbestosis. Appellee asbestos suppliers prevailed on the first question and the Smiths on the second.
• Trimper v. Porter-Hayden (1985). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Baltimore City circuit court's judgments for all defendants, holding that the widows' wrongful death and survival claims were time barred because suit was filed more than three years after each husband's death.
• Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984). The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Johns-Manville, holding the New York judgment dismissing the earlier wrongful death suit barred the widow's Maryland wrongful death action.
• Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the summary judgment for Johns-Manville and the other defendants and remanded, holding the estate's survival and wrongful death actions for lung cancer were not time-barred.
• Harig v. Johns-Manville Products (1978). The Maryland Court of Appeals answered certified questions from the federal district court, holding that Mrs. Harig's negligence and strict liability claims accrued on discovery of her latent disease, a ruling that favored her over Johns-Manville.