U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 47 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina (2014–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Pike v. Dempster Industries, Inc. (2024). The court granted Defco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, including punitive damages, against it because Mr. Pike's exposure to Defco pumps was too infrequent to show causation.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2023). The court denied Ford's renewed motion for directed verdict, granted its motion to amend the judgment so that $6,888,500 in settlements offset the $275,000 verdict, interest and costs (leaving $0 owed), and granted in part and denied in part its objection to costs.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2022). The court granted Northwell's motion to intervene and AII's (joined by WCD) motion to vacate the September 25, 2020 protective order covering Mrs. Bell's identification as a subject of the Moline talc study. It denied the motions to seal, and plaintiff and Northwell lost on all three.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of defendants Abex and Strick to reconsider its expert rulings: it corrected a clerical error and clarified that Herfel and McCloskey may authenticate Navy documents, but it kept its exclusion of their other testimony as duplicative.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion to reconsider the earlier partial denial of summary judgment, so Plaintiff Laura Walls's claims against Ford remained pending.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court denied plaintiff Laura Walls's motion for leave to supplement the record with a supplemental expert report from Dr. Holstein in opposition to the defendants' Daubert motions.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted defendant Pneumo Abex's motion in limine and Rule 702 motion, excluding documents, lay testimony and expert testimony about the mouse tumor data from Saranac Laboratory Experiment 774, a ruling against plaintiff Laura Walls.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions to exclude expert testimony before trial: plaintiff's experts may testify that each defendant's products contributed to and caused Mr. Walls' mesothelioma, but not that any exposure was a legal 'substantial factor'.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defenses, so the plaintiff won on assumption of risk, sophisticated user, workers' compensation exclusivity and several others, while the manufacturers kept contributory negligence, product misuse and intervening cause (in part) for trial.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part six defendants' summary judgment motions and denied Abex's motion entirely: product liability claims survived against all seven defendants, punitive damages claims were dismissed against ZF, Carlisle, Strick, ArvinMeritor and Navistar, and loss of consortium was dismissed against Strick and Ford.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2021). The court granted American International Industries' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Lloyd Bell's claims because AII was not a legal successor to Neslemur under North Carolina law.
• Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021). The court granted summary judgment to Covil, Daniel International, ViacomCBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and Air & Liquid Systems (as successor to Buffalo Pumps), denied the Brocks' cross-motions against Covil and Daniel, and dismissed the claims against those four defendants.
• Covil Corporation v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (2021). The court granted in part the insurer USF&G's motion to compel, requiring Covil to disclose the amount of its Zurich settlement and any allocation provisions tied to the Finch action, and denied the motion as to the TIG, Hartford and Sentry settlements.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021). The district court granted Covil Corporation summary judgment on all claims and excluded plaintiffs' expert Charles Ay, finding no evidence of exposure to Covil-attributable asbestos and, alternatively, no duty owed to the spouse of a non-employee; the case was dismissed.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Daniel International Corporation on all of Deborah and Kenneth McDaniel's claims and denied Daniel's motions in limine as moot.
• Reed v. Reichhold Liquidation, Inc. (2021). The court denied, without prejudice, Reichhold Liquidation's motion for summary judgment against the Reed plaintiffs, ruling that the sole proximate cause defense is likely no longer available under Iowa law and that factual disputes would remain even if it were.
• Vinson v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021). The court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Covil and ViacomCBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and dismissed the claims against them, and denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions against Covil and Daniel International.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The court granted summary judgment to DCo and Eaton on all claims, and to Morse Tec on the punitive damages claim, because plaintiff Laura Walls did not oppose the motions or present supporting evidence.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to give Abex and the joining defendants the grids and test results from her consulting expert's tissue analysis but not his opinions; the motions to join were granted and the parties were told to confer on expert fees.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motions to compel and for sanctions against CRA Trailers: CRA must give the plaintiff its Sales Index and pay part of her attorney's fees, but need not disclose net worth or former employees' contact information.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2020). The district court denied third-party defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service, to strike the third-party complaint, and to abstain or stay in favor of the Delaware case, so American International Industries' indemnity claim goes forward; it also denied AII's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
• Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The court denied Albany International Corp.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the Brocks made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction, and retroactively extended Albany's response deadline to May 3, 2019.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2020). The district court denied Zurich's motion to intervene and its Rule 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(4) motions to set aside Ann Finch's judgment against Covil, and denied Finch's motion to supplement the record as moot; Finch won and Zurich lost.
• Hill v. Mallinckrodt LLC (2020). The district court denied Mallinckrodt's Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join the settled general contractors, so the executor's wrongful-death suit proceeds.
• Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Aurora Pump, Anchor Darling Valve, Fisher Controls, William Powell, Covil and Viking Pump, and dismissed the widow's claims against them for lack of evidence of sufficient exposure to their products.
• Woolard v. Carrier Corporation (2020). The federal district court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Schneider Electric Systems (Foxboro), Chicago Bridge & Iron and Chicago Bridge & Iron (Delaware), dismissing the Woolards' claims against them.
• Zurich American Insurance Company v. Covil Corporation (2020). The court granted summary judgment to insurers Zurich and USF&G on how the Finch judgment is allocated among insurers and Covil by time on the risk, denied Covil's and the individual defendants' cross-motions on that point, and declined jurisdiction over all other declaratory claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2019). The district court denied Covil Corporation's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and for remittitur, leaving in place the $32.7 million jury verdict for Ann Finch.
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Ford, Brenntag Specialties, Whittaker Clark & Daniels and Honeywell because Ratcliff's claims were time-barred, and recommended terminating the other pending motions as moot.
• Smith v. 3M Company (2019). The court granted summary judgment to Farmers Chemical Association and Schlage Lock Company and dismissed both from the wrongful death action brought by Dorothy Smith, the executrix of Julian Smith's estate.
• Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas (2019). The court denied Covil Corporation's and the North Carolina claimants' motions to dismiss for failure to join the receiver and the South Carolina claimants and to abstain under Colorado River, leaving the alternative motions to stay under advisement; Zurich and the other insurers prevailed on these motions.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2018). The court denied American International Industries' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, granted it as to the civil conspiracy claim, and denied plaintiff Bell's request to amend his complaint.
• Connor v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2018). The court granted summary judgment to Covil Corporation and Daniel International Corporation on all claims because the plaintiff could not show Mr. Connor was exposed to their asbestos insulation with sufficient frequency, regularity and proximity, and denied the Daubert motions as moot.
• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018). The court granted summary judgment to defendant McNeil & NRM, Inc. (MNRM) against plaintiff Ann Finch, and also granted MNRM's motion to strike late deposition answers to the extent they went beyond authenticating documents.
• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018). The court granted in part and denied in part Covil's summary judgment motion: the plaintiff's negligence and failure to warn claims over Firestone plant exposure go forward, while the other claims were dismissed, and Covil's motion to strike was denied.
• Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018). The court granted Pfizer's motion to strike the report and testing of plaintiff's expert Sean Fitzgerald and denied plaintiff Ann Finch's motion for spoliation sanctions against Pfizer.
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's and Hennessy Industries' renewed motions and dismissing the fraud count (Count 8) against them, leaving the plaintiff's other claims in place.
• Vanhoy v. American International Industries (2018). The magistrate judge recommended denying American International Industries' motion to dismiss the gross negligence and punitive damages claims (a loss for the defendant) and granting it as to the civil conspiracy claim (a win for the defendant).
• Queen v. CBS Corporation (2017). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the executor's claims against it with prejudice, because there was no evidence Queen was exposed to a Union Carbide product.
• Stewart v. Aurora Pump Company (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Kelly-Moore Paint Company's motion to dismiss Mary Lou Stewart's individual loss of consortium claim, because North Carolina law requires it to be brought under the wrongful death statute.
• Young v. American Talc Company (2017). The court granted the motions of Master Industries, Inc. and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed them without prejudice; the plaintiff lost as to those two defendants.
• Branson v. American International Industries (2016). The magistrate judge recommended denying Brenntag North America's and Brenntag Specialties' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to raising viable jurisdiction defenses at trial, and denied plaintiff Branson's jurisdictional discovery motion as moot.
• Smith v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2016). The court granted Honeywell's summary judgment motion on punitive damages and fraud, and denied it on the implied warranty, failure to warn and design defect claims, which go to trial with the negligence and wrongful death claims; Ms. Smith lost on punitive damages and fraud and won on the rest.
• Young v. 3M Company (2016). The magistrate judge granted Plaintiffs' motion for limited jurisdictional discovery on specific personal jurisdiction over Master Industries, Inc. and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC, over their objections.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014). The court granted The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment against the estate and wife of Ralph Logan because the plaintiffs did not show he was actually exposed to asbestos from a Powell valve.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014). The court granted summary judgment to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, ruling against the plaintiffs, the Logan estate and Lois Logan, for lack of evidence of exposure to a Foster Wheeler asbestos product or of a duty to warn.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014). The court denied summary judgment to Air Products (as successor to Catalytic), Crane Company and Ingersoll-Rand, and granted Air Products' separate motion on claims against it individually, dismissing those claims with prejudice.