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

Our case-law library holds 11 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, District of Utah (2007–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Riegler v. Carlisle Companies, Incorporated (2023). The court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims after excluding Dr. Staggs's specific causation opinion, and granted in part and denied in part the motions to exclude: Ewing's opinion and Staggs's general causation opinion were admitted.
• Hipwell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2022). The district court denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on all of Marguerite Hipwell's claims, so the claims against Foster Wheeler go forward.
• Hipwell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2022). The court denied all three of plaintiff Hipwell's motions in limine, so defendant Foster Wheeler may present evidence of the Navy's negligence and knowledge about asbestos hazards and may offer its corporate witnesses' testimony, subject to later specific objections.
• Sylvester v. Blue Bird Corporation (2022). The court granted summary judgment to Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (successor to Fel-Pro) and Morse TEC LLC (successor to Borg-Warner) against the plaintiffs, finding no genuine dispute that Mr. Labrum was exposed to their asbestos products.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2014). The court denied Crane Co.'s and York International's motions for leave to file a dispositive motion on the bare metal defense, leaving the plaintiff's claims to proceed to trial.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2014). The district court denied Crane Co.'s motion, joined by other defendants, to exclude plaintiff Arva Anderson's expert Dr. Abraham's specific causation testimony, so the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an additional expert report: she may serve a new medical causation expert report within 45 days, but the expert may not give 'every exposure' testimony.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion, joined by York, Honeywell, Goulds Pumps, Flowserve and Sepco, and excluded the plaintiff's experts' "every exposure" specific causation testimony, a ruling for the defendants over Arva Anderson.
• Smith v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The district court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Samuel Hammar, finding his "every exposure" causation opinion inadmissible, which went against plaintiff Linda Smith.
• Larson v. Bondex International, Inc. (2011). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in limine, barring defendants from mentioning Dianna Larson's ex-husband's murder conviction or the book about it at voir dire and trial.
• Anderson v. Asbestos Defendants (In re Asbestos Cases OF Hatch) (2007). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief and continued to defer ruling on their motion to remand, leaving the case to the MDL court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after the conditional transfer order.