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

• Taylor v. Union Carbide Corporation (2nd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted to Union Carbide and remanded for trial, ruling for David Taylor and his wife.
• Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for Saberhagen, holding that strict product liability applies to Lunsford's 1958 exposure, and remanded the case.
• Rochon v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2007). The court affirmed summary judgment for Kimberly-Clark on Mrs. Rochon's employer and landowner duty theories, reversed the dismissal of her general negligence claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2nd Division, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of Weyerhaeuser and remanded with instructions to condition dismissal on Weyerhaeuser's stipulation to proceed in Arkansas state courts, benefiting Sales.
• Bashore v. Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc. (1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment for Fraser's Boiler Service and remanded, holding the record allowed an inference that Mr. Bashore worked at Lockheed's Seattle shipyard in 1970 and was exposed to Fraser's asbestos.
• Butler v. Amtico International Inc. (1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Tile Council of America, holding James Butler did not show he was exposed to a thin set product connected to TCA.
• Creech v. Agco Corporation (1st Division, 2006). Affirmed summary judgment for Oakfabco and against Roberta Creech, holding that Oakfabco's predecessor did not assume liability for Mr. Creech's claim and that Oakfabco was not collaterally estopped from denying liability.
• McPhee v. Ford Motor Company (1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ford Motor Company, rejecting Marvin McPhee's claim over his wife Elaine's fatal mesothelioma because his medical expert's declaration contradicted his deposition and was too conclusory to show causation.
• Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the estate's claims against Global Motorsports Group, because the evidence did not support an inference that Moore was exposed to asbestos from GMG's products.
• Netversant Wireless Systems v. Dept. OF Labor & Industries (1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals upheld L & I's citation of Netversant for failing to notify and train employees about asbestos in Building 1910, affirmed the superior court's ruling that two findings were unsupported, reversed the superior court's removal of the March 27, 2002 violation, and remanded to the Board to clarify the violation dates.
• Brown v. Crown Cork & Seal Company (1st Division, 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell International (successor to Bendix) because Brown offered no evidence that he was exposed to Bendix brake products.
• Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and General Motors, holding that the estate's claims over Clifford Clare's mesothelioma death were time-barred, and the estate lost.
• Fox v. Alcoa, Inc. (1st Division, 2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed the defense verdict for Alcoa, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to enter default or give an adverse inference instruction as sanctions for Alcoa's discovery violations, so plaintiffs Dawna and Travis Fox lost.
• Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2005). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings on strict liability and remanded, so Lunsford's strict liability claim could proceed.
• Campbell v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Corp. (1st Division, 2002). Affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed Shipbuilding, holding Campbell could not sue Lockheed in tort as a third-party premises owner because Lockheed was also his employer under the Longshore Act and its liability was exclusive.
• Berry v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (1st Division, 2000). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and remanded for trial, holding the plaintiffs (Berry's estate and widow) raised a genuine issue of fact on exposure to Brower-supplied products.
• Miller v. Foster Wheeler Co. (1st Division, 1999). The court affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment dismissing the estates' survival claims of Blecker and Holmes as time barred, against administrator Miller and in favor of the defendants.
• Niven v. EJ Bartells Co. (1st Division, 1999). The court reversed summary judgment for Rapid-American Corporation, holding Niven's 1986 release of Celotex did not bar his lung cancer suit and the claim was not shown to be time-barred, but affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen for lack of proof of exposure to its products.
• Mavroudis v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1st Division, 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Mavroudis plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. and affirmed the trial court's finding that the pretrial settlements were reasonable.
• Viereck v. Fibreboard Corp. (1st Division, 1996). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for Virgil Viereck's estate and his wife Julia Viereck against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that pre-WPLA law applied and that the evidentiary rulings were within the trial court's discretion.
• Krivanek v. Fibreboard Corp. (1st Division, 1993). The court affirmed the liability finding against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and the damages awards to Mr. Krivanek's estate and children, but reversed the denial of a new trial on Mrs. Krivanek's damages and remanded for retrial on her damages only.
• Bowers v. Fibreboard Corporation (2nd Division, 1992). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs (the Eldredge and Williams estates and Mrs. Eldredge) against Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois, finding no error in the jury instruction or the evidence rulings; Celotex's issues were left pending its bankruptcy stay.
• Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (1st Division, 1991). The court rejected most of Celotex's and Raymark's challenges but reversed the jury verdict for Lewis and Roberta Koker and remanded for a new trial because of an erroneous lost-chance-of-survival instruction.
• Falk v. Keene Corporation (1st Division, 1989). The Court of Appeals reversed the defense verdict for Keene Corp., Raymark, Eagle Picher and the other manufacturers because the design defect instruction used a negligence standard, and remanded for a new trial.
• IN the Matter of Estate OF Foster (1st Division, 1989). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for the asbestos insulation manufacturer defendants and the denial of a new trial, rejecting the estate's challenges to the expert testimony, the government specification instruction and the deposition admission.
• Sorenson v. Raymark Industries (2nd Division, 1988). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Sorenson and his wife against the asbestos product manufacturers, upholding admission of increased-cancer-risk evidence and denial of a new trial for juror misconduct.