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

Our case-law library holds 23 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (1981–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Ciolino v. Keystone Shipping Co. (2024). The court denied Keystone's motion to strike Ciolino's late expert disclosure, denied Keystone's first summary judgment motion as moot, and denied its second summary judgment motion on all counts, so Ciolino's claims against Keystone go forward.
• Cook v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (2023). The court granted in part and denied in part Foster Wheeler's motion, ruling that maritime law governs the claims, that the bare-metal and government-contractor defenses are available if the trial evidence supports them, and that plaintiff Linda Cook may seek loss of consortium, punitive and survival damages.
• Cook v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (2023). The court denied all pending cross motions for summary judgment by plaintiff Linda Cook and defendants Briggs & Stratton, Foster Wheeler and DCo LLC because significant facts remained in dispute.
• Gillis v. Pbv Inc. (2023). The magistrate judge recommended, and the district judge adopted, granting PBV Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denying the Gillises' request for jurisdictional discovery.
• McIsaac v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023). The court allowed summary judgment for defendant Air & Liquid Systems (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiff Irene McIsaac and denied her Rule 56(d) application for further discovery.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (2023). The magistrate judge allowed Ruth Pritt's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint over John Crane's futility objection, so she may seek survival, loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (2022). The district court overruled John Crane's objection to the magistrate judge's order and left in place the denial of its motion to strike plaintiffs' expert Captain Burger, so the Pritts kept their expert.
• Pritt v. John Crane, Inc. (2022). The court denied John Crane's motion for summary judgment on the Pritts' failure-to-warn and design-defect claims, rejecting its government contractor and derivative sovereign immunity defenses at this stage, so the Pritts prevailed on the motion.
• Sebright v. General Electric Co. (2021). The court denied GE's summary judgment motion on the negligence and warranty counts and on the government contractor defense, allowed GE's motion on the loss of parental society and loss of consortium counts, and allowed Velan's summary judgment motion in full.
• Honor v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The district court granted the executrix's motion to remand and returned the case against Johnson & Johnson to Middlesex Superior Court, rejecting J&J's claim of bankruptcy 'related-to' jurisdiction.
• Mitchell v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The district court granted Maureen Mitchell's motion and remanded the case to Massachusetts Superior Court on equitable grounds, over Johnson & Johnson's removal based on the Imerys bankruptcy.
• Burleigh v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2018). The magistrate judge allowed General Electric's motion, ruling that Maine law, not Massachusetts law, governs the wrongful death damages and punitive damages issues and, for now, the contribution issues.
• Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (2018). The court denied General Electric's summary judgment motion on the main negligence, warranty and gross negligence counts because the Massachusetts statute of repose did not bar them, allowed it on the naval-exposure and separate punitive damages counts, and allowed NSTAR Electric's motion on all counts.
• Barraford v. T & N Limited (2014). The court granted T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for judgment on the pleadings (treated as summary judgment) because Nora Barraford's claims were time-barred and no tolling applied.
• Barraford v. T&N Limited (2013). The court denied T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for summary judgment against Nora Barraford, and granted the motion to strike in part (the medical journal articles) and denied it in part (the Heinen deposition and other exhibits).
• Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Co. v. DN Lukens, Inc. (2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the insurers' summary judgment motions: it declared that Boston Gas pro rata allocation and the continuous trigger apply to the MacDowell suits, that Lukens need not pay a share of the Mastrogiacomo settlement, and it denied a declaration of each party's share; it granted the insurers judgment on Lukens' Chapter 93A claims over refusal to cede defense control but denied it on the settlement claims.
• Holdren v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2009). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding that the Navy-contractor defendants (Buffalo Pumps, Foster Wheeler, Viad, GE and Elliott Turbo Machinery) had not shown a colorable federal contractor defense or a causal connection to support federal officer removal.
• Hilbert v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2008). The court granted the Hilberts' motion to remand and sent the whole case back to Massachusetts state court, finding that McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon had not shown a colorable federal contractor defense; the removing defendants lost.
• O'connell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2008). The court denied O'Connell's motion to remand, holding that Buffalo Pumps properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute because it showed a colorable military contractor defense.
• Hilbert v. Aeroquip, Inc. (2007). The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's report, finding no colorable military contractor or derivative sovereign immunity defense, so the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court succeeded and Northrop Grumman's motion to stay pending MDL transfer was denied.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (1998). The court said it would treat the 2,546 "closed" asbestos cases as fully resolved and terminate them on its docket unless plaintiffs, by June 26, 1998, identified at least 150 suitable for remand and said whether they would seek remand.
• Eagle-Picher Ind. v. American Employers'ins. (1989). After a first-phase bench trial, the court held that American Employers' Insurance failed to show that claim-by-claim review was feasible, so Eagle-Picher won a six-year presumptive rollback for asbestosis and pleural claims.
• Eagle-Picher Industries v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (1981). After trial, the court ruled for Eagle-Picher and Liberty Mutual and the Bird Defendants, adopting the manifestation theory, so coverage is triggered by the date of diagnosis (or death if no earlier diagnosis), and rejected the exposure theory urged by American Motorists and the Froude Defendants.