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

Our case-law library holds 101 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1980–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Finello v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2023). The federal district court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so the Broderick estates' claims against it go forward.
• Pine v. John Crane, Inc. (2023). The court denied John Crane Inc.'s summary judgment motion on causation, granted it on non-pecuniary and punitive damages, and denied its motion to strike Lydia Pine's jury demand.
• Warrington v. 3M Company (2023). The court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims and crossclaims against GE with prejudice and ruling against plaintiffs Robert and Joan Warrington.
• Rogers v. AO Smith Corp. (2022). The court granted summary judgment to Carrier, Crane, CBS/Westinghouse and General Electric, denied it to Copes Vulcan and Aurora Pump, and dismissed the claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium.
• Smeal v. Clark Equipment Company (2022). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Clark Equipment Company and Hyster-Yale Group, so the executrix's claims go forward on both exposure and causation.
• Blystone v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2020). The court granted DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for DAP against the Blystone plaintiffs, because they had no non-speculative evidence that the DAP caulk Mr. Blystone used contained asbestos.
• Blystone v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2020). The court granted U.S. Steel's summary judgment motion as uncontested on the USS Thuban claims, which plaintiffs dropped, and denied it on the claims about exposure in the open hearth area, so those claims by John and Bridget Blystone go forward.
• Shields v. General Electric Co. (2020). The court granted summary judgment to Wabtec, General Electric and CBS (successor to Westinghouse) because the Locomotive Inspection Act preempted Martin Shields's negligence, wrongful death and survival claims, and entered judgment against the plaintiff on all counts.
• Hassell v. Budd Company (2019). The court granted summary judgment to Budd and Resco on claims based on arc chute insulation and on pipes originating in the locomotive (preempted by the LIA), denied it for pipes that did not originate in the locomotive because of a factual dispute, and found no Safety Appliance Act preemption, so the rest of Peggy Hassell's case goes back to the transferor court.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Northrop Grumman, ordering responses to most requests limited to three Navy radar products and denying requests aimed at Northrop Grumman's own workers and factories.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Lockheed Martin, ordering fuller answers to some interrogatories and document requests and refusing others.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2019). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the Krauses' motion to compel discovery from Space Systems/Loral, ordering fuller interrogatory answers but denying the motion as to documents listed in SSL's Rule 26 disclosure and as to a request to rule on SSL's liability.
• Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co. (2019). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Ingersoll-Rand, Warren Pumps and Blackmer Pump, so the plaintiff's claims against all three go forward.
• Walker v. Viad Corp. (2019). The district court denied the plaintiff executor's motion to strike Viad Corp's late-filed answer and its successor-in-interest defense, and ordered discovery reopened on that defense only.
• Walker v. Viad Corp. (2019). The court denied Viad Corp's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim against Viad as alleged successor to Griscom Russell went forward; the court excluded the decedent's deposition but found enough other evidence for a jury.
• Youse & Youse v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, finding complete diversity because Walmart was not a Pennsylvania citizen, and denied Imerys's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the case against Johnson & Johnson, Imerys and Walmart stayed in federal court.
• Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2018). The court denied Robert and Margaret Kraus's motion to remand, ruling that the removing defendants had raised a colorable federal government contractor defense and met the federal officer removal requirements.
• Herman v. Ametek (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (2017). The court granted plaintiffs Maynard and Irene Herman's motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, finding defendants had not shown that the joinder of Ametek was fraudulent.
• National Fire Insurance Company OF Hartford v. Burns & Scalo Roofing Company (2017). The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford and Transportation Insurance Company, declaring they had no further duty to defend or indemnify Burns & Scalo Roofing Company in the underlying Bremer asbestos suit.
• Smith v. Wenerowicz (2017). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss: Smith's Eighth Amendment asbestos claim against Wenerowicz, Misstishin and Oppman went forward, while all claims against Drs. Malhotra and Wiener were dismissed.
• Ney v. Owens-Illinois (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2016). The district court denied William Ney's motion to remand to Philadelphia state court, finding he joined non-diverse defendant Crown, Cork & Seal in bad faith to block removal, so Owens-Illinois's late removal was timely and stood.
• Ney v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2016). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Asbestos Corporation Limited, vacated the state court's broad discovery order, and substituted a narrower order compelling ACL to produce documents about its fiber sales to three companies.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The court denied Crane Co.'s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and let the jury verdict for the plaintiffs stand as molded.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion to mold the verdict, granted the Rabovsky plaintiffs' motions to mold the verdict and for delay damages, and entered a molded judgment of $377,096.73 against Crane Co.
• Frank v. Honeywell International Inc. (2015). The court granted non-party expert Dr. Arthur Frank's motion and quashed the subpoena served by Honeywell (joined by Ford), because they had not shown a need for the documents or deposition.
• Schwartz v. Abex Corp. (2015). The court granted summary judgment to Pratt & Whitney on both the strict liability and negligent failure-to-warn claims, so the plaintiff lost against that defendant.
• Stellar v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Mack Trucks' argument that the claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Gillen v. Boeing Company (2014). The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss Marilyn Gillen's take-home asbestos exposure claim, finding Boeing owed her no duty under Pennsylvania law.
• Schott v. Viad Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2014). The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and granted summary judgment for Viad Corporation on all claims because the plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos parts made or supplied by Griscom-Russell.
• Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2013). The magistrate judge denied Lockheed Martin's motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing, found that plaintiffs' counsel violated Rule 4.2 but refused to disqualify him, awarded Lockheed $10,000 in partial fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for sanctions.
• Cardaro v. General Electric Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (VI)) (2013). The court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding the Louisiana statute of repose did not bar the Cardaros' failure-to-warn claims and that a fact question remained, so the Cardaros prevailed on the motion.
• Perry v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2013). The court granted Railroad Friction Products Corporation's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Alice Perry's state law claims as preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2012). The court granted summary judgment to General Electric, Crane, Foster Wheeler, Warren Pumps, IMO Industries, Buffalo Pumps, Armstrong International and CBS, and denied the plaintiffs relief on their strict liability and negligence claims.
• Donn v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (2012). The district court denied the motion of CBS Corporation and General Electric to dismiss plaintiff Alan Donn's asbestos failure-to-warn claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rejecting their preemption and political question arguments.
• Thurmon v. Scapa Waycross (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2012). The magistrate judge granted Scapa Waycross, Honeywell International and Warren Pumps' motions to quash plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) corporate deposition notices, denied plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery and their motion to compel Scapa documents (reserving the request under Rule 56(d)), and deferred Scapa's Rule 11 sanctions motion.
• Rabovsky v. Goulds Pumps (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (2012). The court denied the motions of Goulds Pumps, Crane Co. and the defendants who joined them to exclude the plaintiffs' experts' "each and every exposure" causation testimony, so the plaintiffs, Valent and Ann Rabovsky, may present it.
• Millsaps v. Aluminum Company of America (2012). The court denied Alcoa's motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, so plaintiff Millsaps may depose Dr. Cullen, with Alcoa's corporate designee Jeff Shockey to be deposed first.
• Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2012). The district judge overruled objections by Pennsylvania Electric and Crane, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny judgment on the pleadings and affirming denial of Crane's motion to exclude 'each and every exposure' expert testimony, so plaintiffs prevailed on both points.
• Senger v. AH Bennett Company (2012). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motions for summary judgment in all nineteen North Dakota Amoco refinery cases, ruling against the plaintiffs, because there was no evidence the decedents were exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler's product or work.
• Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants (2012). The court granted Foster Wheeler's motions for summary judgment in all nineteen North Dakota Amoco refinery cases because plaintiffs had no evidence that any decedent was exposed to asbestos from Foster Wheeler's product or work.
• Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (2012). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and motion to strike affidavits, finding the defendants' (CBS, Foster Wheeler, GE) federal officer removal timely and proper.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2011). The court granted defendants' summary judgment motions in Conner, Prange and Stone only to the extent they sought application of maritime law, and denied them in Willis, where state law applies.
• Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2011). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motions in Conner, Prange and Stone to the extent they sought application of maritime law, and denied the same motions in Willis, which will be decided under state law.
• Graver v. Allentown Cement Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (2011). The court granted the Gravers' motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, rejecting removing defendant Allentown Cement Company's claim of diversity jurisdiction, and denied the Gravers' request for costs and sanctions.
• Vest v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2011). The court granted the Vests' motion to remand to California state court, holding that McDonnell Douglas Corporation's removal under the federal officer removal statute was untimely.
• Anderson v. Salmon Bay and Gravel Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2011). The court refused to preclude plaintiffs' pathologist Dr. Hammar's "every exposure" opinion, finding it reliable enough under Rule 702 and leaving the defendant's objections to cross-examination, so Salmon Bay's motion failed as to him; it found Dr. Brodkin had not offered that opinion and could not evaluate Dr. Brody for lack of record materials.
• Taylor v. Alcatel Lucent USA (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2011). The magistrate judge denied Lucent's motion to deem its requests for admissions admitted, sustained the plaintiffs' objections and found their answers sufficient, and granted the plaintiffs leave to supplement the record with supplemental expert declarations.
• Wingfield v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)) (2011). The court granted the Moving Defendants' motion (John Crane, Warren Pumps, General Electric, Georgia-Pacific and Crane Co.) to exclude Emmett Wingfield's videotaped deposition, a ruling against the plaintiff.
• Corley v. Bill Vann Co. (In re Liability Litigation) (2011). The court overruled the plaintiffs' objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the moving defendants win summary judgment on the pre-1979 Alabama one-year limitations bar. It also overruled the defendants' objections and denied summary judgment without prejudice on the one-disease/two-disease question, leaving that issue to the transferor court.
• Graver v. Allentown Cement Co. (In re Liability Litigation) (2011). The court granted the Gravers' motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Allentown Cement Company's removal, and denied the Gravers' request for costs and sanctions.