New Jersey Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from New Jersey's courts and the federal courts there: 118 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see New Jersey asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see New Jersey asbestos exposure sites.

State appeals courts

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division

• Millison v. EI du Pont de Nemours (1988). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury verdicts and judgment for the du Pont employees and their spouses against du Pont and its two plant doctors, holding that admitting the OSHA citations was error but harmless.
• Seckular v. Celotex (1986). The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment for the defendants on limitations grounds and directed that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed without prejudice, leaving the claim to be pursued in Florida alongside the pending Florida death action.
• Bush v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation (1977). The Appellate Division affirmed the compensation judge's award to the widow, Virginia Bush, of dependency death benefits at the $15 weekly minimum, computed on her husband's 1924 wages with Johns-Manville, rejecting her request for a higher wage base.
• Gromack v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1977). The Appellate Division reduced the attorney's fee awarded to the widow's counsel from $7,000 to $5,000 and reallocated it to $1,000 from the widow and $4,000 from employer Johns-Manville, modifying the judgment.

State trial courts

New Jersey Superior Court

• Devlin v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Law Division, 1985). On a defense motion in seven asbestosis cases, the trial court held that plaintiffs could not recover for the enhanced risk of cancer standing alone, but could seek damages for fear of cancer and for future medical surveillance, with evidence of the increased risk going to the jury on those items.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

• Haas v. 3M Company (2015). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's summary judgment for General Electric, which Haas had appealed, and remanded for further proceedings. It also held the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Brasmer's deposition testimony.
• Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998). The Third Circuit dismissed Westinghouse's (CBS's) appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, leaving in place the district court's order remanding the Feidts' suit to New Jersey state court.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey

• Losurdo v. Viacomcbs Inc. (2025). The court denied GE's and Westinghouse's summary judgment motions on duty to warn, causation, and the government contractor defense, but granted them on punitive damages and loss of consortium, so the Losurdo plaintiffs won most issues and lost those two damages claims.
• Ltl Management LLC v. Emory (2024). The court granted the three physician defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied jurisdictional discovery, and ruled against LTL Management; it denied the Rule 12(b)(1) standing challenge and did not reach the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
• Ltl Management LLC v. Moline (2024). The court granted Dr. Moline's motion to dismiss LTL Management's trade libel, fraud and Lanham Act claims, without prejudice and with leave to move to amend within 30 days.
• Protopapas v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (2024). The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of the motion to dismiss Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' Chapter 11 case and dismissed the appeal by the Receiver and the Talc Claimants committee, so WCD's bankruptcy stayed in place.
• Gea Mechanical Equipment US, Inc. v. First State Insurance Company (2023). The court denied GEA Mechanical's motion for summary judgment and granted the insurers' cross-motion, ruling that GEA Mechanical's late notice of the underlying asbestos suit barred coverage under the Hartford, First State, Continental and Atlanta International (Wellfleet) policies.
• Hall v. Johnson & Johnson (2023). The court granted Johnson & Johnson's motions to supplement the class certification record and granted the lead plaintiff's motion to certify a class of J&J investors, finding J&J had not rebutted the presumption of reliance for any of the six alleged corrective disclosures.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2022). The court granted the unopposed motion by plaintiffs Paul and Julie Klick to remand the case to state court after Boeing, the federal-officer removing defendant, was dismissed, and denied Goodrich's proposed order dismissing crossclaims as moot.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021). The court granted Westinghouse leave to file a reply brief but denied its motion for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment, so the claims by Linda Hammell against Westinghouse continued.
• In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (2021). The Special Master sustained most of Johnson & Johnson's attorney-client privilege and work-product claims but overruled them, in whole or in part, for about 32 sampled documents, which J&J must produce to the plaintiffs within seven days; decisions on four documents were deferred or held for a conference.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2021). The court denied Abex's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice and ordered 45 days of limited jurisdictional discovery, followed by supplemental briefing, because the record was inadequate to decide.
• Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2021). The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction over Boeing in New Jersey, denied jurisdictional discovery, and declined to transfer the claims, so Boeing won against the Klicks.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The District Court denied the summary judgment motions of CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, so the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claims against both go forward.
• In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products (2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Johnson & Johnson's motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts Saed, Longo and the general-causation experts, and denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude defense experts Diette, Saenz and Neel.
• Kirkwood v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2020). The court denied, without prejudice, the motions of Cyprus Mines and Cyprus Amax Minerals to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and allowed the plaintiff jurisdictional discovery, and it denied the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Oklahoma.
• Perrone v. Johnson & Johnson (2020). The court granted Johnson & Johnson's and the two executives' motion to dismiss the ERISA stock-drop class action without prejudice, with leave for the plan participants to amend within 45 days.
• Hall v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the shareholder securities fraud complaint: claims over talc safety and 'asbestos-free' statements survived against J&J, Gorsky, Goodrich, Casalvieri and Glasgow, while claims over litigation-viability statements and all claims against Caruso, Peterson and Sneed were dismissed.
• In re Duro Dyne National Corp. (2019). The district court denied the U.S. Trustee's appeal and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order appointing Lawrence Fitzpatrick as future asbestos claimants' representative in Duro Dyne's bankruptcy, a win for Duro Dyne, the asbestos claimants' committee and Fitzpatrick.
• Manz v. Brenntag NA (2019). The district court denied plaintiff Robert Manz's motion to remand to New Jersey state court, so removal by defendants Imerys and Cyprus Amax stood.
• McClung v. 3M Company (2019). The district court denied Plaintiff's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations as modified, found no personal jurisdiction over General Electric or Boeing, denied their motions to dismiss, and severed and transferred the claims against GE to the Southern District of West Virginia and against Boeing to the District of Delaware.
• Thomas-Fish v. Aetna Steel Products Corp. (2019). The court granted Sonic Industries' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff pled no facts showing it was a successor to the joiner contractor, and denied the plaintiff's motion to stay as moot.
• Grimes v. AT&T Corp. (2018). The district court declined supplemental jurisdiction after the only federal-officer-removal defendant (Crane) was dismissed on unopposed summary judgment, and remanded the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, without ruling on the remaining defendants' summary judgment motions.
• Thomas-Fish v. Aetna Steel Products Corp. (2018). The District Court denied the widow's motion to remand, ruling that the defendants properly removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute.
• Grimes v. AT&T Corp. (2017). The court denied, without prejudice to renewal, the motions of Canadian asbestos miners Asbestos Corporation Limited and Bell Asbestos Mines to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and ordered limited jurisdictional discovery for plaintiff Estelle Grimes.
• McClung v. 3M Company (2017). The court severed the claims against General Electric and transferred them to the Southern District of West Virginia, granting General Electric's request and denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot.
• Hernandez v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2016). The district court granted plaintiff Hernandez's motion and remanded the case to New Jersey state court, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's claim that WCD and BSI were fraudulently joined.
• Vesper v. 3M Company (2016). The federal district court granted summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps and Sid Harvey Industries because Vesper offered no evidence tying them to his asbestos exposure, and denied summary judgment to DAP and Warren Pumps, leaving Vesper's claims against them for trial.
• Feaster v. AW Chesterton Company (2015). The court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Samuel Feaster, finding no evidence he was exposed to an asbestos-containing product made or supplied by GE.
• Feaster v. AW Chesterton Company (2015). The court granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois, Brand Insulations and Durametallic, and against plaintiff Feaster, because he did not identify any of them as a source of his asbestos exposure.
• Fuoco v. 3M Company (2015). The court granted Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Josephine Fuoco, finding no evidence that Mr. Fuoco was exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion on the bare metal defense, entering judgment for Foster Wheeler against plaintiff Linda Hammell, and denied both parties' cross-motions on the government contractor defense because of disputed facts.
• Shearer v. AW Chesterton Company (2015). The court granted summary judgment to General Electric under the bare metal defense, and granted A.W. Chesterton's and Westinghouse's unopposed motions, against plaintiffs Shearer and his wife.
• Thomasson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of the moving defendants (including Goulds, Bechtel, Warren, Trane, FMC, General Electric, Foster Wheeler and CBS) against plaintiff Claire Thomasson, and denied MetLife's motion to dismiss without prejudice while allowing 45 days of added discovery.
• Barnes v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (2014). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GE with prejudice, because plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence that Barnes was exposed to an asbestos product made or supplied by GE.
• Haas v. 3M Company (2014). The court granted summary judgment to Boeing (government contractor defense), GE and Goodyear (no proof of exposure to their asbestos-containing products), defeating the plaintiffs' claims.
• Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014). The district court denied the Hammells' motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because GE, CBS and Foster Wheeler Energy satisfied the federal officer removal requirements.
• Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., Inc. (2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to New Jersey Superior Court, finding Boeing failed to show it acted under a federal officer for federal officer removal, so the plaintiffs prevailed over Boeing.
• Robinson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014). The court granted the motion of defendants Flowserve, General Electric, Goulds Pumps and Tata Chemical and transferred the case from the District of New Jersey to the District of Wyoming.
• Scearce v. 3M Company (2013). The court granted the Scearces' motion to remand to New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, because Raytheon failed to show its federal officer removal was timely.
• Lewis v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2012). The district court denied plaintiff Elizabeth Lewis's motion to remand to New Jersey state court, ruling that GE's federal officer removal defense gave it federal question jurisdiction over the whole case, so GE, Bell and MetLife stayed in federal court.
• Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2012). The district court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice, ruling for BASF, Cahill Gordon and the individual defendants against the plaintiffs.
• Brust v. Acf Industries, LLC (2011). The court granted Brust's motion to remand to New Jersey state court because her complaint raised only state-law claims, and denied her request for attorney's fees and costs against the DRPA.
• Fusco v. Asbestos Corporation (2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and remanded the case to the Superior Court of New Jersey because the defendants failed to establish diversity or alienage jurisdiction; the plaintiffs' request for costs and fees was denied.
• In re Congoleum Corp. (2009). The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Bankruptcy Court's denial of confirmation of Congoleum's plan, reversed the dismissal of the bankruptcy cases, and withdrew the reference; in a later opinion it denied the insurers' motion for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay.