U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 353 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (1991–2025). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Lebeau v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Avondale (with Lloyd's and Hopeman Brothers joining) timely removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, so the case stays in federal court.
• Legendre v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (2023). The court granted the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff Legendre's claim was not a covered claim because it was filed after the December 31, 2021 deadline.
• Marsh v. Continental Insurance Company (2023). The magistrate judge granted Continental Insurance's motion to quash plaintiff's 1,459 requests for admission and its motion for a protective order limiting the corporate deposition topics, and denied plaintiff's motion to compel as moot.
• Marsh v. Continental Insurance Company (2023). The court denied Continental Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment seeking a dollar-for-dollar (pro tanto) credit for settlements and trust payments, ruling for the plaintiff estate administrator.
• Matherne v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2023). The court denied LIGA's motion for entry of a Rule 54(b) final judgment on the earlier summary judgment in its favor, so LIGA must wait until the whole case ends to appeal; the plaintiffs prevailed on this motion.
• Ports America Gulfport, Inc. v. Johnson (2023). The court denied state Judge Rachael Johnson's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against Ports America Gulfport, Inc., because the court had ruled on the challenged claim before the 21-day safe harbor period ended.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court granted the premises-owner defendants' partial summary judgment on strict liability under former article 2317 for crane exposures in 1996 or earlier, and denied it for any later years; Ragusa lost on the earlier years.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court denied the defendants' Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff Frank Ragusa's experts Dr. Kraus and Dr. Landreneau, so plaintiff's specific-causation testimony on his mesothelioma may be presented at trial.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court denied all nine summary judgment motions by premises owners and product companies, so Ragusa's asbestos claims against Pharmacia, Legacy Vulcan, Syngenta, Marathon, Murphy Oil, International Paper, Westinghouse and Riley Power continue.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion to remand the case to state court, keeping it in federal court against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and the other defendants.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment on strict liability, direct negligence and intentional tort claims for the 1989 exposures, and denied it on vicarious liability, so Ragusa lost on three theories and won on one.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court granted plaintiff Frank Ragusa Jr.'s motion for summary judgment that he has mesothelioma and that asbestos caused it, over opposition from Amdura, Syngenta, Rubicon and FMC.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court granted summary judgment to Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and to Travelers as insurer of Avondale's alleged executive officers, dismissing Ragusa's negligence and intentional tort claims as barred by the LHWCA.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023). The court granted LIGA's summary judgment motion as to coverage of Avondale itself, because Avondale is a high net worth insured, and denied it without prejudice as to coverage of Avondale's executive officers.
• Rivet v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2023). The district judge granted the Rivet plaintiffs' objection to the magistrate judge's order, allowing them to amend their complaint to add Sparta and further claims against Pennsylvania Insurance Company, and stayed the claims against PIC and Sparta pending the Massachusetts litigation.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's motions to expedite and to continue the trial, and stayed and administratively closed the case pending the outcome of Avondale's certiorari petition in Barrosse; the Robichaux plaintiffs lost their opposition.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied the summary judgment motions of Uniroyal Holdings and Foster Wheeler, leaving the survivors' and Avondale's claims against them for trial.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to exclude Avondale's corporate representative Danny Joyce as a factual witness, and denied Avondale's motion to compel disclosure of settlements and trust submissions as moot or, to the extent not moot, as an improper attempt to reopen discovery.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's motion in limine, ruling that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy documents were authentic and admissible to the extent relevant, over the Robichaux plaintiffs' objections.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' motion in limine to exclude the late-produced expert affidavits of Kenneth Garza and Dr. Brent Staggs, so the plaintiffs may use them.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' (Avondale's) motion for partial summary judgment on the Robichaux family's take-home exposure claim, so that claim goes forward.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment, so Robichaux's state-law tort claims against Avondale were not preempted by the LHWCA and the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that releases Robichaux signed in the earlier Borden litigation released his future mesothelioma claims against the released parties, which were not parties here, so Avondale won and the plaintiffs lost this point.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted summary judgment to IMO, GE, Viacom and Union Carbide, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice, and denied Zurich's summary judgment motion as moot because Zurich had been dismissed from the case.
• Rushton v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion and directed entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) in favor of Avondale on the earlier summary judgments dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it.
• Simoneaux v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. (2023). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive (Mennen)'s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, granted J&J's motion as to punitive damages, and denied J&J's motion as to civil conspiracy, so the conspiracy claim against J&J proceeds.
• Thompson v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2023). The court denied plaintiff Velma Lee Thompson's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute, a win for Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its co-defendants.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court denied third-party defendant Amchem's motion for summary judgment against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls), finding genuine factual disputes on exposure and causation.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court denied Westinghouse's (ViacomCBS) motion for summary judgment against third-party plaintiff Avondale, finding genuine disputes of fact on exposure to Westinghouse's Micarta and on substantial-factor causation.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court granted plaintiff Ora Jean Adams's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) cannot use the Boyle government contractor defense or Yearsley derivative sovereign immunity against her failure-to-warn and failure-to-prevent-spread claims.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Ford, General Electric, Foster Wheeler, ViacomCBS (Westinghouse), Morse TEC (BorgWarner) and Navistar, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Volkswagen and Honeywell (joined by Ford, Pneumo Abex and Morse TEC) and denied the defendants' motions in limine, so the plaintiffs' causation experts could testify, limited to opinions on cumulative asbestos exposure.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The court granted the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, dismissing the Becnel heirs' intentional tort, fraud and concealment claims, and denied Morse TEC's request for oral argument as unnecessary.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Morse TEC's motion, joined by many co-defendants, for summary judgment on contributory negligence, so the Becnel family's claims continue.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Hopeman's motion for partial summary judgment in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional tort claim, and denied it in part, so the plaintiffs' single business enterprise (alter ego) claim against Hopeman went forward.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied, without prejudice, defendant American Insurance Company's two summary judgment motions (products hazard exclusion and no exposure during the policy period), leaving plaintiffs' claims against AIC as Eagle's alleged insurer in place.
• Boutte v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2022). The court denied McDermott's Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, holding that Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s cross-claim against McDermott met Rule 8 pleading standards.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike eleven defense expert witnesses, including Hopeman Brothers' witness Max Richard, because no expert reports were produced.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment dismissing the failure-to-warn claims, but denied it on the Halter Marine exposure and on whether its FRDM was a substantial factor in causing Cortez's mesothelioma.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment on claims about asbestos insulation used on its turbines and denied it on claims about asbestos gaskets it supplied or specified for those turbines.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Continental Insurance Company's summary judgment motion, holding the LHWCA preempted Cortez's state-law tort claims against it as Halter Marine's insurer and that his intentional-tort claims failed for lack of evidence, and dismissed Continental's two other summary-judgment motions as moot.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' omnibus motion in limine, barring terms like "asbestos industry" and the Bair memorandum, while allowing the "asbestos victim" label and lay testimony about dust.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Travelers Indemnity Company's unopposed motion to quash the plaintiffs' trial subpoena, ruling against the plaintiffs.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied plaintiffs' Daubert motion in limine to limit the testimony of Hopeman Brothers' toxicologist, Dr. Brent Finley, so Hopeman prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not recover pre-death lost income or pre-death expenses as wrongful death damages.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Certain London Market Insurers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims arising from Avondale exposures after January 21, 1970, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in limine, excluding most of Westinghouse's expert Dr. Forman's testimony on insulation and general Navy requirements but allowing his testimony on shipyard asbestos-safety requirements relevant to the sophisticated-purchaser defense.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Riley Power, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the statute of repose and exposure-sufficiency grounds, and denied its motion to strike as moot, so plaintiffs (the Cortez family) prevailed over Riley at this stage.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Hopeman Brothers partial summary judgment that it was not a manufacturer of the asbestos wallboards, but denied summary judgment on whether it was a professional vendor, so that question goes to trial against the Cortez plaintiffs and Avondale's opposition.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiffs' industrial hygienist Gerald Baril, so the plaintiffs' expert may testify.