U.S. District Court, District of Maryland: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 47 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (1986–2021). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Company (2021). The district court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of John Crane Inc., Goulds Pumps LLC, Crane Co., and Schneider Electric USA (Square D) and dismissed them from the case, because no evidence showed their conduct was a substantial factor in Mr. Barrett's illness.
• Murphy v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021). The district court granted Robert Murphy's motion to remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court because Hopeman Brothers failed to show a causal nexus for federal officer removal, and denied Hopeman's motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Curtin v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2020). The court dismissed the claims against Cyprus and Avon without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against JJCI without prejudice, denying JJCI's surreply and pleadings motions.
• Hailey v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Air and Liquid Systems, Crane, CBS, GE and IMO and to the cross-defendants on the cross-claims, because plaintiffs could not show any defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Shockley's mesothelioma; plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied as moot.
• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Co. (2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Westinghouse (CBS Corporation) timely removed the case and plausibly asserted a colorable federal officer defense.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine factual dispute over whether Bendix brake boxes carried asbestos warnings, so the plaintiffs' claims against Honeywell proceed.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motions in limine to exclude supplemental reports by Honeywell's experts Crapo, Watson and Chirieac, finding the late disclosure harmless, but ordered Honeywell to pay reasonable costs of deposing the experts on the new material.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The district court granted in part and denied in part Honeywell's Daubert motion: plaintiffs' experts Dr. Frank, Dr. Maddox and Dr. Finkelstein may testify, but may not rely on the 'each and every exposure' theory.
• Fullen v. 3M Company (2019). The court granted Velan Valve's unopposed summary judgment motion on cross-claims, denied plaintiffs' motion to strike Lockheed's late-designated fact witness, and granted Lockheed's motion, ruling that plaintiffs waived English law and Maryland law applies.
• Kerkhof v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The District Court granted Carol and Stuart Kerkhof's motion to remand their talc mesothelioma suit to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy-based removal.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, barring Foster Wheeler's sophisticated user and superseding cause defenses; Foster Wheeler lost on both.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (2018). The district court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand, holding that Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal was timely, so the case stays in federal court.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Georgia-Pacific's industrial hygienist expert, Donald Marano, so Georgia-Pacific won the motion.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2017). The court granted CSXT Transportation's motion, treated as one for summary judgment, and dismissed the contribution claims by Georgia-Pacific and MCIC against CSXT because LHWCA exclusivity bars them; it also ordered defendants to show cause why the remaining claims should not be remanded to state court.
• Dugger v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court on Crane Co.'s federal officer removal.
• Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs to submit narrowed topics, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply.
• Rhodes v. Mcic, Inc. (2017). The court granted Honeywell's and Ingersoll Rand's motions for judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a plausible claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by January 31, 2017.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017). The court excluded the plaintiffs' experts' specific causation and "each and every exposure" opinions and granted summary judgment to Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific on the Rockmans' remaining strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017). The court granted five unopposed partial summary judgment motions for Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific, ending the kidney cancer, breach of warranty, fraud, conspiracy, market share liability, aiding and abetting and punitive damages claims; strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims remain.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton (Cutler Hammer), Foster Wheeler, Schneider Electric (Square D), Union Carbide and Crane. It denied summary judgment to MCIC and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion against the strict liability claim.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert's opinion about asbestos exposure from Micarta and granted summary judgment to CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) against Charles and Barbara Arbogast on all claims.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert Dr. Vance's opinions that GE wire and GE marine turbines exposed Arbogast to asbestos, and granted summary judgment to General Electric on all of the Arbogasts' claims against it.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions that the plaintiffs did not oppose, and entered partial judgment for all defendants on the aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims; fourteen defendants remain in the case.
• Oliver v. Campbell McCORMICK, Inc. (2016). The court granted Oliver's motion to sever and remand all non-third-party claims to Baltimore City Circuit Court, and granted in part and denied as moot in part Campbell-McCormick's motion to reconsider the stay, keeping only the third-party claims.
• Rhodes v. McIC, Inc. (2016). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and their alternative motion to sever and remand the non-Crane Co. claims, so Crane Co. kept its federal forum under the federal officer removal statute.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (2016). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to Baltimore City state court, finding Foster Wheeler failed to establish a colorable federal contractor defense or a causal nexus needed for federal officer removal.
• Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the suit to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City after GE was dismissed, over CBS's opposition, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Haney v. 3M Company (2015). The district court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling that the plaintiffs' evidence of Haney's exposure to Hopeman-installed Marinite panels was too infrequent and brief to be a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Haney v. 3M Company (2015). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against the Haney plaintiffs, finding no admissible evidence that Haney was exposed to asbestos in a product for which Crane Co. is liable.
• Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2015). The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the remaining claims against Union Carbide and A.W. Chesterton to Baltimore City Circuit Court, retaining supplemental jurisdiction, so Union Carbide prevailed on the motion.
• Sroka v. Union Carbide Corp. (2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Baltimore City Circuit Court, holding that Hopeman Brothers, Lofton Corp. and Wayne Manufacturing had not raised a colorable federal contractor defense to support federal officer removal.
• Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2014). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, or to sever and remand the claims against the non-removing defendants, so General Electric kept its federal forum.
• National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh, PA v. Porter Hayden Company (2014). The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment: the Insurers (National Union and American Home) waived the voluntary obligation provision, but they may challenge the reasonableness of the Trust's settlements and Porter Hayden bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on reasonableness.
• Netzer v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014). The court granted Netzer's motion to remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, rejecting CBS Corp.'s removal because the passing of a witness deadline was not an "other paper" that triggered a right to remove.
• Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2014). The court denied Union Carbide's motion in limine and its summary judgment motion on product identification, exposure and causation, but granted summary judgment to Union Carbide on the duty-to-warn claim and on the unopposed warranty, fraud, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and punitive damages claims.
• Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013). The court let plaintiff Joyner amend his complaint to disclaim all damages tied to Crane Co.'s valves, remanded his remaining Cranite gasket claims against Crane Co. to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, and denied the motion to strike and the motions for reconsideration by Crane Co. and Owens-Illinois as moot.
• Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013). The court held Crane Co. properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, severed Joyner's claims against Crane Co. and kept them in federal court, and remanded his claims against the other defendants to Baltimore City Circuit Court.
• Barlow v. John Crane Houdaille, Inc. (2012). The court granted Joyce Barlow's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's fraudulent joinder argument, denied her request for fees, and did not rule on Colgate's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Dilks v. 4520 Corp., Inc. (2012). The court granted Dilks's motion to remand to state court because Ingersoll-Rand's federal officer removal was untimely, but denied her request for attorney's fees and costs.
• Jones v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2012). The district court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiffs' (Michael and Paulette Jones) motion to remand, finding the defendants' notice of removal plausibly alleged federal enclave jurisdiction, so the defendants kept the case in federal court for now.
• O'connor v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2007). The district court denied the City of Baltimore's motion to dismiss, holding that O'Connor had standing to sue under the Medicare Secondary Payer statute, so he won at this stage.
• National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh v. Porter Hayden Company (2005). The court denied the insurers' (National Union and American Home) motion on trigger of coverage, granted it on pro rata allocation, and granted it in part on completed operations aggregate limits, leaving fact questions on whether Porter Hayden's operations were completed.
• Sledz v. Flintkote Co. (2002). The court granted plaintiff Sledz's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City because Flintkote's removal came more than one year after the action commenced, and denied his request for attorney's fees.
• Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge (2001). The court granted Parler & Wobber's motion for reconsideration and entered summary judgment for Parler & Wobber on Miles & Stockbridge's third-party contribution claim, and it entered judgment for Royal against Miles & Stockbridge and Barreiro for $1,655,916 plus prejudgment interest.
• Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge (2001). The court granted Royal Insurance summary judgment against Miles & Stockbridge on the malpractice claims about the default judgment and settlement, but granted Miles judgment on the third-party-claims issue; it also granted Parler & Wobber judgment on indemnification and denied it on contribution.
• Vaughn v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (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.
• Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The court refused to rescind leave to amend, held Ann Knauer's wrongful death claim time-barred (granting defendants summary judgment on it), and denied dismissal of her survival claims for pre- and post-death damages.