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

Our case-law library holds 37 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (1986–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Washington Penn Plastic Co., Inc. v. the Phoenix Insurance Company (2024). The court granted Washington Penn Plastic's motion to compel, ordering Travelers to supplement its discovery responses and serve a more detailed privilege log within three weeks, with leave to renew the motion later.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (2023). The district court sustained Plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate judge's order, lifted the stay, and granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case against Penn Power to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, over Penn Power's opposition.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (2023). The district judge sustained Penn Power's objections, set aside the magistrate judge's order denying a stay, and directed that the case against Penn Power be stayed until the state occupational disease proceedings and appeals are finally resolved, favoring Penn Power over the Data plaintiffs.
• Data v. Joy Global Underground Mining (2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Joy Global Underground Mining's summary judgment motion as to Mr. Data's exposure from being near others' work on the Joy air compressor, and denying it as to his hands-on gasket work on the compressor, so that claim goes forward for the plaintiff.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining premises liability claim, ruling for Duquesne Light and against the estate of Carl Gay.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's non-product motion for summary judgment, ruling against the plaintiff estate because Duquesne Light owed Mr. Gay no duty as landowner or as employer of an independent contractor.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted defendant Eckel Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs for lack of evidence that Mr. Hilster was exposed to an Eckel asbestos product, and dismissed Eckel's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Warren Pumps, LLC and against the Hilster plaintiffs, and dismissed Warren's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' two experts as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment for The William Powell Company against the Hilster plaintiffs because there was no evidence Mr. Hilster was exposed to asbestos from a Powell product, and dismissed Powell's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor to Buffalo Pumps, and entered judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on product identification for most moving defendants (including M.S. Jacobs, Flowserve, Armstrong International, William Powell, Clyde Union, IUNA, Atwood, Viking, Dezurik, Alfa Laval, Gardner Denver, Hyster-Yale, BW/IP and Clark), denying it for Honeywell and Air & Liquid Systems, granting it in part and denying it in part for Dana, GE and FMC, and denying Nash's motion without prejudice because of its bankruptcy stay.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended denying Pennsylvania Power Company's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Alfa Laval's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs' claims against both could go forward.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (2021). The court ruled on General Electric's summary judgment motion in a federal asbestos case, but the opinion contradicts itself: the reasoning finds the plaintiff failed to show enough exposure to GE products and says the motion is granted, while the opening and closing paragraphs say it is denied.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted the Exelon defendants' summary judgment motion on claims about the Limerick Power Station and denied it on claims about the Nine Mile Power Plant, so the estate's claim continues only as to Nine Mile.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Honeywell and against the plaintiff estate, because the plaintiff did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Honeywell product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because the evidence did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Viking Pump's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay, finding no genuine issue that he was exposed to asbestos from a Viking pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Square D/Schneider Electric's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show that the Square D products at issue contained asbestos.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a GE product with enough frequency, regularity and proximity.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Yuba product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court denied Power Piping Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Carl Gay, represented by his daughter Allisa Gay, may continue its claim against Power Piping.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted summary judgment for Atwood (Weir Valves & Controls USA) against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show sufficient exposure to Atwood valves.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Mueller Steam Specialty's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not identify a Mueller Steam product as a cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Carrier Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff, the estate of Carl Gay, could not show Carrier's product was a substantial cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Gardner Denver's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Gardner product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiff Allisa Gay, because the evidence did not show that Carl Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Buffalo pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted Hunter Sales Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiff Allisa Gay because she did not show that Carl Gay breathed asbestos fibers from Hunter Sales gaskets.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Flowserve U.S., Inc. (successor to Durametallic Corp.) because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from Durametallic products.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2020). The district court denied Fisher Scientific's motion for summary judgment, so the Mehnerts' negligence and loss of consortium claims against Fisher go forward to a jury.
• Shook v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff Shook's motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy "related to" removal, and denying her motion for hearing as moot.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2018). The district court denied the Mehnerts' motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, finding the defendants' removal timely, so the defendants prevailed on the motion.
• George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court granted Lockheed Martin's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because its Pennsylvania registration began decades after the alleged exposure, and remanded the remaining claims to Allegheny County state court.
• Abbott v. the Boeing Company (2015). The court granted the Abbotts' motion to remand, finding no federal subject-matter jurisdiction over their asbestos claims, and sent the case back to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas over US Airways' objection.
• Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (2014). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Pittsburgh Corning's reorganization plan and its § 524(g) asbestos channeling injunction, holding that objecting insurer Mt. McKinley lacked standing; the plan parties won and Mt. McKinley lost.
• McCloskey v. Allis-Chalmers Products Liability Trust (2011). The court denied Lincoln Electric Company's motion to intervene as a defendant, so the plaintiffs' Navy-exposure case proceeds without Lincoln and its post-service welding-rod claims.
• Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008). The court denied Viacom's summary judgment motion because genuine factual disputes remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward.
• Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The federal district court granted summary judgment to the asbestos manufacturer defendants because the plaintiff, the widow, could not identify which manufacturer's products her husband was exposed to, and market share and enterprise liability did not apply.