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

Our case-law library holds 10 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania (1992–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Gorton v. Warren Pumps, LLC (2023). The district court granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling against Mrs. Gorton because the government contractor defense barred her product claims and the fraudulent concealment claim failed.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion to vacate the default judgment entered for Ms. Gorton, holding the judgment void because the amended complaint with a new wrongful death claim was not properly served on Warren Pumps.
• Gorton v. Eaton Corporation (2022). The district court denied Eaton Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so Rhonda Gorton's claims against Eaton can go to a jury.
• Gorton v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2022). The court construed Gardner Denver's summary judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion and granted it because Mrs. Gorton's earlier notice of dismissal had automatically dismissed her claims against Gardner Denver without prejudice, leaving no case or controversy; the rest of the motion was denied.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court denied the defendants' motion (Eaton, joined by Schneider Electric and Aurora Pump) to exclude plaintiff's experts Dr. Kradin and Dr. Kipen, so plaintiff won this ruling.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Mrs. Gorton's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint against AT&T Corp. It allowed the intentional fraudulent concealment claim, the claims based on AT&T Corp. as manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-filled pillows or bags, and the loss of consortium claim. It denied the negligence and recklessness claims against AT&T Corp. as Mr. Gorton's employer, which are barred by Ohio workers' compensation law.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied Ford's and AT&T Corp.'s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted their motions for failure to state a claim, dismissing both from the amended complaint without prejudice.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018). The court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction for Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992). The court held the four non-settling defendants (W.R. Grace, U.S. Gypsum, GAF, National Gypsum) jointly and severally liable, deducted the Owens-Corning settlement and a one-sixth Manville Trust share from the verdict, and awarded the plaintiffs Rule 238 delay damages, with some periods excluded.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992). The court granted W.R. Grace's and U.S. Gypsum's motions and entered partial summary judgment for them on the plaintiff's punitive damage claim, so Alma Sealover could not try punitive damages.