District of Columbia Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from District of Columbia's courts and the federal courts there: 12 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see District of Columbia asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see District of Columbia asbestos exposure sites.

State appeals courts

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

• Washington Hospital Center v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (2004). The court affirmed the Department of Employment Services' order finding that claimant Anita Jones gave timely notice of her work-related mesothelioma, so she was eligible for compensation and Washington Hospital Center lost.
• Alliegro v. ACandS, Inc. (1997). The appeals court reversed the trial court's directed verdict for ACandS, Inc. in phase one and remanded, holding that Mr. Alliegro's evidence should have gone to the jury.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel (1997). The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting its Batson, state-of-the-art evidence and statute of limitations challenges.
• District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989). The court reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for the asbestos manufacturers and sellers, holding the District of Columbia's property-damage claims were not time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

• Jackson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2019). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's Daubert motion excluding plaintiff's expert Dr. Gordon's product contamination and specific causation opinions, granted in part and denied in part Colgate's motion in limine on talc sample authenticity, and found plaintiff's motion in limine moot.
• Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to the law firm Brown & Gould, attorney Daniel Brown and David Lipman, P.A. on all three counts and denied Nieves Rocha's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
• Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2013). The district court struck the plaintiff's late expert declaration and granted Honeywell's motion to reconsider, entering summary judgment for Honeywell because the plaintiff could not show causation under Virginia law as stated in Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer.
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ray EX rel. Boyd (2010). The court granted the estate's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Conrail's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Rail Act does not bar the estate from pursuing Conrail as a successor in the Ohio FELA asbestos case.
• Carey Canada Inc. v. California Union Ins. Co. (1989). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the excess insurers (Home, National Union, Columbia Casualty) and against Carey Canada and Celotex, holding the policies' "asbestosis" exclusions bar all asbestos-related disease claims, and dismissed the actions.
• Carey Canada v. California Union Ins. Co. (1989). The court denied the plaintiffs' (Carey Canada and Celotex) motion for partial summary judgment, holding the asbestosis exclusions in the excess insurers' policies ambiguous and allowing extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent, which favored the insurers at this stage.
• Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981). The court denied the joint motion for summary judgment by Johns-Manville and the other asbestos defendants, holding the widow's claims were neither time-barred nor barred by the workers' compensation settlement.
• Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1981). The court granted Keene Corporation partial summary judgment against its insurers (INA, Aetna, Hartford, Liberty), holding that coverage is triggered by exposure to asbestos, and denied Aetna's challenge to jurisdiction.