Maryland Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Maryland's courts and the federal courts there: 128 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Maryland asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Maryland asbestos exposure sites.

State appeals courts

Maryland Court of Special Appeals

• Burns v. Bechtel Corp. (2013). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Bechtel, holding Jean Burns's claims over her husband's mesothelioma were barred by Maryland's statute of repose.
• Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Carter (2013). The Court of Special Appeals reversed and vacated the judgments for the fifteen use plaintiffs against the Wallace & Gale Trust as time-barred, reversed the Hewitt judgments and remanded for a new trial on apportionment, and affirmed the plaintiffs' judgments in the Carter, James and Lawrence cases.
• Brannan v. Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust (2012). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's summary judgment for the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, so the four estates could not seek further money from the Trust.
• Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012). The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgments for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiffs' expert's causation opinion.
• Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar (2012). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment of about $4.995 million for Jocelyn Farrar against Georgia-Pacific, rejecting Georgia-Pacific's challenges on duty to warn, causation evidence, and the jury instruction.
• Crane v. Linkus (2010). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mr. Linkus (and his estate) against John Crane, Inc., rejecting Crane's challenges to causation, the size of the verdict, and the denial of credits for bankrupt entities' payments.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2010). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City judgment for Carl Saville against Scapa Dryer Fabrics and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, and upheld the denial of their cross-claims against the settling defendants.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2009). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Carl Saville against Scapa Dryer Fabrics and the Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, and upheld the denial of their JNOV and new-trial motions and of Scapa's request for a further reduction for bankruptcy trust payments.
• Taylor v. Csr Limited (2008). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the circuit court's dismissal of the estates' claims against CSR Limited for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiff estates.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Puller (2006). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts for the Cichy plaintiffs against John Crane, Inc. and for the Puller plaintiffs against Garlock Sealing Technologies, but remanded so the statutory cap could be removed from the loss of consortium awards; the cap on the wrongful death awards was upheld.
• Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2005). Affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide and Georgia Pacific on the survival action as time-barred, but reversed it on the wrongful death action and remanded, so Elsie Benjamin may continue that claim.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment for the Gianottis against Owens-Illinois, holding that the damages cap did not apply, the loss of consortium claim could proceed, the release reserved the mesothelioma claim, and the verdict was properly reduced for the Babcock & Wilcox settlement.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Hunter (2005). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City judgment: it rejected Owens-Illinois's challenges to the evidence and to the consortium award, and rejected Ms. Hunter's cross-appeal challenging the remittitur and the wrongful death damages cap.
• Wajer v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (2004). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Baltimore Gas and Electric Company against Anthony and Frances Wajer, holding BGE owed no duty under Restatement §§ 414 or 343 and that the other theories were not preserved.
• Garlock v. Gallagher (2003). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts and the evidentiary and trial-management rulings for the plaintiffs, but reversed the Gallagher judgment calculation in favor of John Crane, Garlock and Anchor on the stipulated dismissal of the cross-claims, and remanded the Tamburrino calculation in Garlock's favor.
• Owens-Illinois v. Gianotti (2002). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgments for John Gianotti and his wife against Owens-Illinois, rejecting its challenges, and also rejected the Gianottis' cross-appeal over the reduction of their judgments for the Babcock & Wilcox default and settlement.
• Hollingsworth v. Connor (2000). The court reversed the judgment against Hollingsworth & Vose for lack of personal jurisdiction in Maryland, affirmed the rulings favoring Connor against Lorillard on the jury instructions, expert testimony, sufficiency of evidence and spoliation, and remanded on the noneconomic damages cap and settlement credits.
• Owens Corning v. Bauman (1999). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the admission of Dr. Hammar's testimony, the refusal to amend the ad damnum clause, the refusal to submit punitive damages, and the denial of remittitur for excessiveness, but remanded so a new jury could decide when Hammond's mesothelioma arose for purposes of the noneconomic damages cap, which went against Owens Corning on the standard but partly for it on the jury question.
• Owens Corning v. Walatka (1999). The court reversed the trial court's refusal to apply Maryland's noneconomic damages cap to the Walatka verdicts, ruling for Owens Corning and Owens-Illinois, and remanded to apply the cap to all claims; it affirmed the Adams judgments against Owens Corning, ruling for the Adams plaintiffs.
• Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999). The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment for the Wyches against Porter Hayden and remanded with instructions to apply the statutory cap on noneconomic damages, because the Wyches failed to show the cancer arose before the cap's effective date.
• ACandS v. Abate (1998). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for the trial plaintiffs against U.S. Mineral, against Stebbing, and for Goodman and Morrow against Hampshire for insufficient evidence. It vacated the Theis and Glensky judgments against Hampshire for an instruction error, ordered Ciotta's award cut to the $350,000 cap, ordered reformed starting dates on two verdict sheets, and otherwise affirmed for the plaintiffs against Rapid-American and Crane.
• Adams v. Owens-Illinois (1998). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City jury verdicts, which were for the defendants in seven cases and for the plaintiffs in the Parsons and Drebing mesothelioma cases, and ordered the appellants to pay costs.
• Ford Motor v. Wood (1998). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment for Mrs. Wood against Ford Motor Company for insufficient proof that her husband was exposed to Ford's brake and clutch products, and affirmed the judgment for the Grewe plaintiffs.
• Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997). The appeals court held that the statutory cap on noneconomic damages applies to the wrongful death awards in Zumas and McCaffery, but not to the personal injury and consortium awards. It ordered Grimshaw's medical-expense award cut to the stipulated amount and reversed the judgment against Hopeman Brothers. It otherwise affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Anchor and Owens-Corning.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Baltimore City (1996). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the $2,600,000 punitive damages award against Owens-Corning for lack of proof of actual knowledge, affirmed the compensatory award for the City of Baltimore, and rejected the juror-misconduct claim.
• ACandS, Inc. v. Asner (1995). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Baltimore City jury judgments for the Asner, Wilson and Payne plaintiffs against insulation contractors ACandS and Porter Hayden, including the punitive damages and the consortium and solatium awards.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the punitive damages awards for the Knuckles estate against Eagle-Picher and Owens-Illinois and affirmed all other judgments for the plaintiffs against the manufacturer and installer defendants.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

• Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2017). The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand order, holding Foster Wheeler met the federal officer removal requirements of § 1442(a)(1), and remanded for the district court to decide whether the removal notice was timely.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Company (2021). The district court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of John Crane Inc., Goulds Pumps LLC, Crane Co., and Schneider Electric USA (Square D) and dismissed them from the case, because no evidence showed their conduct was a substantial factor in Mr. Barrett's illness.
• Murphy v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021). The district court granted Robert Murphy's motion to remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court because Hopeman Brothers failed to show a causal nexus for federal officer removal, and denied Hopeman's motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Curtin v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2020). The court dismissed the claims against Cyprus and Avon without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against JJCI without prejudice, denying JJCI's surreply and pleadings motions.
• Hailey v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Air and Liquid Systems, Crane, CBS, GE and IMO and to the cross-defendants on the cross-claims, because plaintiffs could not show any defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Shockley's mesothelioma; plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied as moot.
• Barrett v. AW Chesterton Co. (2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Westinghouse (CBS Corporation) timely removed the case and plausibly asserted a colorable federal officer defense.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court denied Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine factual dispute over whether Bendix brake boxes carried asbestos warnings, so the plaintiffs' claims against Honeywell proceed.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motions in limine to exclude supplemental reports by Honeywell's experts Crapo, Watson and Chirieac, finding the late disclosure harmless, but ordered Honeywell to pay reasonable costs of deposing the experts on the new material.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The district court granted in part and denied in part Honeywell's Daubert motion: plaintiffs' experts Dr. Frank, Dr. Maddox and Dr. Finkelstein may testify, but may not rely on the 'each and every exposure' theory.
• Fullen v. 3M Company (2019). The court granted Velan Valve's unopposed summary judgment motion on cross-claims, denied plaintiffs' motion to strike Lockheed's late-designated fact witness, and granted Lockheed's motion, ruling that plaintiffs waived English law and Maryland law applies.
• Kerkhof v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The District Court granted Carol and Stuart Kerkhof's motion to remand their talc mesothelioma suit to the Montgomery County Circuit Court, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy-based removal.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, barring Foster Wheeler's sophisticated user and superseding cause defenses; Foster Wheeler lost on both.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (2018). The district court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand, holding that Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal was timely, so the case stays in federal court.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Georgia-Pacific's industrial hygienist expert, Donald Marano, so Georgia-Pacific won the motion.
• Arbogast v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2017). The court granted CSXT Transportation's motion, treated as one for summary judgment, and dismissed the contribution claims by Georgia-Pacific and MCIC against CSXT because LHWCA exclusivity bars them; it also ordered defendants to show cause why the remaining claims should not be remanded to state court.
• Dugger v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court on Crane Co.'s federal officer removal.
• Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs to submit narrowed topics, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply.
• Rhodes v. Mcic, Inc. (2017). The court granted Honeywell's and Ingersoll Rand's motions for judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a plausible claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by January 31, 2017.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017). The court excluded the plaintiffs' experts' specific causation and "each and every exposure" opinions and granted summary judgment to Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific on the Rockmans' remaining strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017). The court granted five unopposed partial summary judgment motions for Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific, ending the kidney cancer, breach of warranty, fraud, conspiracy, market share liability, aiding and abetting and punitive damages claims; strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims remain.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton (Cutler Hammer), Foster Wheeler, Schneider Electric (Square D), Union Carbide and Crane. It denied summary judgment to MCIC and denied Georgia-Pacific's motion against the strict liability claim.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert's opinion about asbestos exposure from Micarta and granted summary judgment to CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) against Charles and Barbara Arbogast on all claims.
• Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert Dr. Vance's opinions that GE wire and GE marine turbines exposed Arbogast to asbestos, and granted summary judgment to General Electric on all of the Arbogasts' claims against it.