Washington Court of Appeals: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 76 asbestos decisions from the Washington Court of Appeals (1988–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Washington
• Kind of court: State appeals court

Decisions

• Cockrum v. Murphy (1st Division, 2024). Affirmed summary judgment dismissing the Cockrums' personal injury suit against Howmet Aerospace (Alcoa's successor), and denied Howmet's request for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
• Olson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (1st Division, 2024). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Joy Global (P&H) on all claims, rejecting the estate's argument that the trial court should have given an ongoing duty to warn instruction.
• Sorrentino v. Ammco Tools, Inc. (1st Division, 2024). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Sorrentino's estate against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America, upholding the denial of their JMOL motion, their three proposed jury instructions, and personal jurisdiction over VWAG.
• Buckholtz v. American Optical Corporation (2nd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals held that Zidell Explorations owed Woodruff a duty as owner of at least one ship he worked on, but not as lease guarantor, and that the trial court wrongly found spoliation; it remanded to vacate the judgment against Zidell Explorations and for a new trial.
• Holdsworth v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict of about $16.7 million for the Holdsworth estate and Sherrie Holdsworth against Scapa Waycross, and upheld the denial of Scapa's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
• Lewis v. Washington State Department OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's order upholding the Board's denial of permanent surviving spouse benefits to Diane Lewis, so the Department of Labor and Industries prevailed.
• Welch v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Brand Insulations and Haskell Corporation based on the construction statute of repose, ruling for the Welches, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's $13,426,000 verdict for Raymond Budd against Kaiser Gypsum Company, rejecting all of Kaiser's challenges.
• Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking Marjorie Carroll's complaint against Nissan as a discovery sanction and remanded, and affirmed the $1,000 fee sanction against attorney Owens, rejecting Nissan's cross-appeal.
• Hickson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (1st Division, 2022). Affirmed summary judgment for ARCO and Brand Insulations, dismissing the estate's claim that asbestos exposure at the Cherry Point refinery caused Duane Hickson's mesothelioma.
• Roemmich v. 3M Company (1st Division, 2022). The court affirmed the verdict for 3M on the strict products liability claim, but reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Roemmiches' negligence claim because of an erroneous proximate cause instruction and an unsupported superseding cause instruction.
• Wright v. 3M Company (1st Division, 2021). The court affirmed the jury's $4 million verdict for Wright against ExxonMobil (Mobil), but vacated the judgment and remanded for a new settlement reasonableness hearing because the settling parties never provided the full settlement agreements.
• 1Up Floors, LLC v. Department of Labor & Industries (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' decision, upheld by the superior court, that 1Up Floors committed serious WISHA asbestos violations and that the Department's penalty calculations stood; 1Up lost.
• CBS Corporation v. Ulbricht (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's finding that the $4.5 million covenant judgment for the Ulbricht family against PM Northwest was reasonable, rejecting the appeal by insurer USF&G.
• Clevenger v. John Crane, Inc. (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment for John Crane, Inc. entered on a defense jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, ruling for Era Clevenger because the proximate cause instruction was misleading and prejudicial.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdict against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA but reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial on the estate's pain and suffering claim and on the consortium and loss of services claims.
• Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Parsons Government Services and Brand Insulations, holding the construction statute of repose barred the Browns' claims.
• Cameron v. Atlantic Richfield Company (1st Division, 2019). The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for PacifiCorp, holding the 1967 repose statute bars Linda Cameron's claims arising from construction activities but not those arising from PacifiCorp's status as a premises owner, and remanded.
• Hoffman v. Ketchikan Pulp Co. (2nd Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ketchikan Pulp Co. against Hoffman, his wife and his estate, holding that Alaska's statute of repose barred the claim.
• Leren v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Estate of Marvin Leren against Elementis Chemicals, holding Elementis liable as successor to a raw-asbestos distributor, upholding the noneconomic damages award, and approving the refusal to give a superseding cause instruction.
• Noll v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to make findings of fact on personal jurisdiction over Special Electric, because it could not tell why the trial court had found Candace Noll's evidence insufficient; the court retained jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2018). Affirmed dismissal of the estate's wrongful death action against Brand Insulations, which had lost the prior survivorship trial, but reversed dismissal as to CBS and Parsons and remanded for reinstatement of those claims.
• Advance Environmental Inc. v. Director Washington State Department OF Labor and Industries (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court and affirmed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' decision upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' citation against Advance Environmental for a serious violation of the 10-day asbestos notice rule.
• Estate OF Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Barbara Brandes's estate against Brand Insulations and reversed the trial court's remittitur, ordering the full $3,500,000 verdict reinstated.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corporation (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a fact issue that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of the asbestos refractory products.
• Woo v. General Electric Company (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the Woo Estate's claims against General Electric and remanded for trial, because fact issues existed on GE's duty to warn and on causation.
• Hoffman v. General Electric Company (2nd Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's CR 12(b)(6) dismissal of Larry Hoffman's claims against General Electric and Ketchikan Pulp Company and remanded, so Hoffman prevailed on the appeal, although the 'defective product' exception was held not to save his claim against Ketchikan.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding that Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a genuine issue of fact that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of Insulag and Panelag.
• Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of about $4.5 million entered on the jury verdict for the Estate of Edwin Estenson against Caterpillar, upholding denial of summary judgment, a new trial, and vacatur of the verdict.
• Kalahar v. Alcoa, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The court affirmed summary judgment for Alcoa, dismissing the Kalahars' mesothelioma suit because they could not show Alcoa knew injury was certain to occur.
• Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's CR 12(b)(2) dismissal, holding Washington may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Special Electric, so Noll's estate won on this issue.
• Ehlert v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Brand Insulations, upholding dismissal of the widows' strict liability claims, the general negligence instruction and exclusion of the newspaper articles, and did not reach Brand's cross appeal.
• Farrow v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's exclusion of Wortman's deposition testimony and its summary judgment for Flowserve, ruling for the Farrows and remanding for further proceedings.
• Kennedy v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and remanded for further proceedings, finding Kennedy presented enough evidence to raise a fact question about exposure to Saberhagen's asbestos insulation.
• Apcompower Inc. v. State, Department OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, which had vacated the citation, and reinstated the Board's order upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' citation of APComPower for serious asbestos-work violations.
• Long v. State Dept. OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2013). The court affirmed the denial of Aileen Long's workers' compensation claim for her husband's death, but reversed the denial of temporary and interim benefits, remanded to the Department of Labor and Industries, and awarded Long attorney fees of $25,249.
• Montaney v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Montaneys' claim against J-M Manufacturing, finding enough evidence for a jury to infer Montaney was exposed to asbestos-cement pipe JMM sold.
• Walston v. Boeing Company (2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Boeing's summary judgment motion and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Boeing, ruling against Walston.
• Abbay v. Aurora Pump Company (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing George and Lynne Abbay's asbestos suit against the manufacturer and supplier respondents, and remanded, holding the disclaimer ambiguous and clarified in Abbay's favor.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2011). The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Arnolds' CR 60(b)(3) motion to vacate summary judgment for Lockheed, because the earlier appeal had already decided that the Walsh-Healey Act creates no duty to the Arnolds.
• Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of the Morgans' claims against the pump and valve makers (Aurora, Buffalo, IMO, Warren, Weir and Powell) and remanded for trial.
• Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Warren Pumps, Inc. and against Mary Jo Wangen, individually and as personal representative of William Wangen's estate, and affirmed the order on reconsideration.
• Yankee v. APV North America, Inc. (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for APV dismissing Siemieniec's claims and reversed the denial of summary judgment on Yankee's failure-to-warn claim, so APV won in both cases.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed on Daniel Arnold's own occupational exposure claim, but reversed it on all other claims by the Arnolds and remanded for trial.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (1st Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, finding material fact issues on Robert Cashman's exposure to asbestos in Pacific's equipment, and upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case for spoliation, so Darlyne Cashman's estate prevailed on both points.
• Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of summary judgment for the respirator manufacturers (American Optical, Mine Safety Appliances, North Safety Products), defeating Macias's failure-to-warn claims.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, rejecting the estate's claims because it did not show Cashman was exposed to asbestos in Pacific's original products; it did not reach Pacific's spoliation cross-appeal.
• Butler v. Amtico International Inc. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing James and Kathleen Butler's claim against Domco Products, the successor to tile maker Azrock, finding enough evidence of exposure and cumulative causation for trial.
• Kimball v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Elliott Company and ruled for Ernest Kimball, finding enough evidence of exposure and causation for a jury; it did not review the order striking evidence.
• Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial final judgment after a bench trial, holding Viad Corporation was not liable as successor to Griscom-Russell for its asbestos-related liabilities, so Viad won and the Paynes lost on this issue.