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

Our case-law library holds 19 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (1981–2022). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Babler v. Soo Line Railroad Company (2022). The court granted the Bablers' motion to remand to Milwaukee County Circuit Court because Soo Line Railroad's removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); Soo Line lost its bid to stay in federal court.
• Ahnert v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau (2018). The court denied the Ahnert plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its earlier Daubert rulings barring industrial hygienist Kenneth Garza's reports and testimony, so the exclusion favoring Pabst, Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance and WEPCO stood.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2017). The court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling that factual disputes prevented it from deciding that the Safe Place Statute or the construction statute of repose barred the Ahnerts' claims, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment on the premises-owner, statute of repose and punitive damages issues, so Beverly Ahnert's claims go to trial.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The court denied Pabst Brewing Company's motion for summary judgment, leaving the executrix's safe-place negligence claim over Daniel Ahnert's mesothelioma to proceed against Pabst.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court denied Sprinkmann Sons Corporation's and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's claims against Sprinkmann will go to a jury.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against Beverly Ahnert's claims and dismissed the case as to Foster Wheeler, finding the claims barred by Wisconsin's construction statute of repose.
• Ahnert v. Brand Insulation Inc. (2015). The court granted CBS Corporation's and General Electric's motions for judgment on the pleadings, holding Beverly Ahnert's mesothelioma suit against them barred by claim preclusion, and dismissed both defendants.
• Arendt v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois, dismissing with prejudice the claims of Georgia Arendt and her husband's estate as barred by issue preclusion and the Wisconsin statute of limitations, and ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why they should not pay Owens-Illinois' attorneys' fees.
• Herr v. Linde LLC (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Linde LLC (Airco) against plaintiff Janice Herr and the Estate of Richard Herr, finding no evidence Herr used Airco's gloves and, alternatively, that the strict liability claim was released in the earlier M&F settlement.
• Nuutinen v. CBS Corporation (2015). The court denied CBS's renewed summary judgment motion based on Wisconsin's construction statute of repose, granted John Crane's summary judgment motion because the plaintiff offered no evidence against it, and ruled on the parties' motions in limine.
• Spychalla v. Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc. (2015). The district court denied summary judgment to Boeing, Cessna and General Electric, granted and denied the motions in limine in part, and allowed Boeing to file a late government contractor defense motion.
• Ahnert v. Brand Insulation Inc. (2014). The court granted Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss, holding that the prior with-prejudice dismissal of the 2010 asbestosis suit barred Beverly Ahnert's 2013 mesothelioma suit against Owens-Illinois.
• Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Eaton Corporation (2013). The court granted Eaton's motion to dismiss only as to Alliance's implied good faith and fair dealing count and denied it on the breach of contract, promissory estoppel and declaratory judgment counts, so those claims against Eaton went forward.
• Anderson v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co. (2013). The court granted Procter & Gamble's motion in limine, reversing its earlier view and holding the repose-statute exception did not apply, so evidence of exposures during improvement and new-construction work is barred at trial, while maintenance exposures remain a fact question.
• Anderson v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co. (2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims proceed and are not barred by the statute of repose.
• Anderson v. the Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company (2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company's amended motion for summary judgment, so the estate of electrician Lloyd Anderson, represented by his wife Beverly Anderson, may proceed on its premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims.
• Sybron Transition v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford (2000). After a court trial, the court granted Security's motion to amend the judgment, allocating the Press settlement by months and cutting Security's share to $230,208.39. It granted Sybron's motion only to clarify one finding of fact, and denied Sybron's request for attorneys' fees.
• Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981). The federal district court denied the summary judgment motions of Johns-Manville, Keene, Armstrong Cork, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and the third-party defendants, holding that the Wisconsin limitations period runs from the plaintiff's last exposure to any asbestos-containing product, and it set a schedule for further summary judgment motions on lack of recent contact.