Pennsylvania Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Pennsylvania's courts and the federal courts there: 303 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Pennsylvania asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Pennsylvania asbestos exposure sites.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion to vacate the default judgment entered for Ms. Gorton, holding the judgment void because the amended complaint with a new wrongful death claim was not properly served on Warren Pumps.
• Gorton v. Eaton Corporation (2022). The district court denied Eaton Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so Rhonda Gorton's claims against Eaton can go to a jury.
• Gorton v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2022). The court construed Gardner Denver's summary judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion and granted it because Mrs. Gorton's earlier notice of dismissal had automatically dismissed her claims against Gardner Denver without prejudice, leaving no case or controversy; the rest of the motion was denied.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court denied the defendants' motion (Eaton, joined by Schneider Electric and Aurora Pump) to exclude plaintiff's experts Dr. Kradin and Dr. Kipen, so plaintiff won this ruling.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Mrs. Gorton's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint against AT&T Corp. It allowed the intentional fraudulent concealment claim, the claims based on AT&T Corp. as manufacturer and supplier of asbestos-filled pillows or bags, and the loss of consortium claim. It denied the negligence and recklessness claims against AT&T Corp. as Mr. Gorton's employer, which are barred by Ohio workers' compensation law.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied Ford's and AT&T Corp.'s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted their motions for failure to state a claim, dismissing both from the amended complaint without prejudice.
• Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018). The court granted dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction for Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992). The court held the four non-settling defendants (W.R. Grace, U.S. Gypsum, GAF, National Gypsum) jointly and severally liable, deducted the Owens-Corning settlement and a one-sixth Manville Trust share from the verdict, and awarded the plaintiffs Rule 238 delay damages, with some periods excluded.
• Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992). The court granted W.R. Grace's and U.S. Gypsum's motions and entered partial summary judgment for them on the plaintiff's punitive damage claim, so Alma Sealover could not try punitive damages.

U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

• Washington Penn Plastic Co., Inc. v. the Phoenix Insurance Company (2024). The court granted Washington Penn Plastic's motion to compel, ordering Travelers to supplement its discovery responses and serve a more detailed privilege log within three weeks, with leave to renew the motion later.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (2023). The district court sustained Plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate judge's order, lifted the stay, and granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case against Penn Power to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, over Penn Power's opposition.
• Data v. Pennsylvania Power Company (2023). The district judge sustained Penn Power's objections, set aside the magistrate judge's order denying a stay, and directed that the case against Penn Power be stayed until the state occupational disease proceedings and appeals are finally resolved, favoring Penn Power over the Data plaintiffs.
• Data v. Joy Global Underground Mining (2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Joy Global Underground Mining's summary judgment motion as to Mr. Data's exposure from being near others' work on the Joy air compressor, and denying it as to his hands-on gasket work on the compressor, so that claim goes forward for the plaintiff.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining premises liability claim, ruling for Duquesne Light and against the estate of Carl Gay.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2022). The court granted Duquesne Light Company's non-product motion for summary judgment, ruling against the plaintiff estate because Duquesne Light owed Mr. Gay no duty as landowner or as employer of an independent contractor.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted defendant Eckel Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs for lack of evidence that Mr. Hilster was exposed to an Eckel asbestos product, and dismissed Eckel's motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Warren Pumps, LLC and against the Hilster plaintiffs, and dismissed Warren's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' two experts as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment for The William Powell Company against the Hilster plaintiffs because there was no evidence Mr. Hilster was exposed to asbestos from a Powell product, and dismissed Powell's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert as moot.
• Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022). The district court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor to Buffalo Pumps, and entered judgment against the Hilster plaintiffs.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on product identification for most moving defendants (including M.S. Jacobs, Flowserve, Armstrong International, William Powell, Clyde Union, IUNA, Atwood, Viking, Dezurik, Alfa Laval, Gardner Denver, Hyster-Yale, BW/IP and Clark), denying it for Honeywell and Air & Liquid Systems, granting it in part and denying it in part for Dana, GE and FMC, and denying Nash's motion without prejudice because of its bankruptcy stay.
• Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended denying Pennsylvania Power Company's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Alfa Laval's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs' claims against both could go forward.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corp. (2021). The court ruled on General Electric's summary judgment motion in a federal asbestos case, but the opinion contradicts itself: the reasoning finds the plaintiff failed to show enough exposure to GE products and says the motion is granted, while the opening and closing paragraphs say it is denied.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted the Exelon defendants' summary judgment motion on claims about the Limerick Power Station and denied it on claims about the Nine Mile Power Plant, so the estate's claim continues only as to Nine Mile.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Honeywell's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Honeywell and against the plaintiff estate, because the plaintiff did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Honeywell product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Warren Pumps LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because the evidence did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Warren pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Viking Pump's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay, finding no genuine issue that he was exposed to asbestos from a Viking pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Square D/Schneider Electric's motion for summary judgment against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show that the Square D products at issue contained asbestos.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a GE product with enough frequency, regularity and proximity.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show Mr. Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Yuba product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court denied Power Piping Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate of Carl Gay, represented by his daughter Allisa Gay, may continue its claim against Power Piping.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted summary judgment for Atwood (Weir Valves & Controls USA) against the estate of Carl Gay because the plaintiff did not show sufficient exposure to Atwood valves.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Mueller Steam Specialty's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not identify a Mueller Steam product as a cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Carrier Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff, the estate of Carl Gay, could not show Carrier's product was a substantial cause of his mesothelioma.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted Gardner Denver's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Allisa Gay, executor of Carl Gay's estate, because she did not show he was exposed to asbestos from a Gardner product.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiff Allisa Gay, because the evidence did not show that Carl Gay was exposed to asbestos from a Buffalo pump.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The court granted Hunter Sales Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiff Allisa Gay because she did not show that Carl Gay breathed asbestos fibers from Hunter Sales gaskets.
• Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Flowserve U.S., Inc. (successor to Durametallic Corp.) because the plaintiff, executor of Carl Gay's estate, did not show he was exposed to asbestos from Durametallic products.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2020). The district court denied Fisher Scientific's motion for summary judgment, so the Mehnerts' negligence and loss of consortium claims against Fisher go forward to a jury.
• Shook v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff Shook's motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy "related to" removal, and denying her motion for hearing as moot.
• Mehnert v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2018). The district court denied the Mehnerts' motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, finding the defendants' removal timely, so the defendants prevailed on the motion.
• George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016). The court granted Lockheed Martin's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because its Pennsylvania registration began decades after the alleged exposure, and remanded the remaining claims to Allegheny County state court.
• Abbott v. the Boeing Company (2015). The court granted the Abbotts' motion to remand, finding no federal subject-matter jurisdiction over their asbestos claims, and sent the case back to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas over US Airways' objection.
• Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (2014). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Pittsburgh Corning's reorganization plan and its § 524(g) asbestos channeling injunction, holding that objecting insurer Mt. McKinley lacked standing; the plan parties won and Mt. McKinley lost.
• McCloskey v. Allis-Chalmers Products Liability Trust (2011). The court denied Lincoln Electric Company's motion to intervene as a defendant, so the plaintiffs' Navy-exposure case proceeds without Lincoln and its post-service welding-rod claims.
• Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008). The court denied Viacom's summary judgment motion because genuine factual disputes remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward.
• Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The federal district court granted summary judgment to the asbestos manufacturer defendants because the plaintiff, the widow, could not identify which manufacturer's products her husband was exposed to, and market share and enterprise liability did not apply.

Federal bankruptcy courts

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (2022). The bankruptcy court granted the joint motion and approved the amended buyout agreement between Honeywell and the NARCO asbestos trust (with the trust's advisory committee and the future claimants' representative joining), confirmed that the channeling injunction stays in place, and reserved the London market insurers' separate rights.
• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (2022). The bankruptcy court denied the insurers' motion to unredact claimant information in 28 trial exhibits, ruling the unredacted versions were never filed and so carried no right of public access, a win for Honeywell, the Trust, TAC and FCR over the insurers.
• In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (2015). The bankruptcy court denied, without prejudice, Honeywell's motion for a preliminary injunction against the NARCO Asbestos Trust's handling of expedited claims, so the Trust prevailed for now; the court also raised its own doubts about subject matter jurisdiction.
• In re Mid-Valley, Inc. (2014). The bankruptcy court denied, without prejudice, NL Industries' motion to enforce the asbestos channeling injunction and for sanctions against Marilyn Judson. It interpreted the injunction as covering only the part of her claim tied to Baroid/Bentone exposure and left the rest to the Missouri state court.