Washington Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Washington's courts and the federal courts there: 221 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Washington asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Washington asbestos exposure sites.

State appeals courts

Washington Court of Appeals

• Kennedy v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and remanded for further proceedings, finding Kennedy presented enough evidence to raise a fact question about exposure to Saberhagen's asbestos insulation.
• Apcompower Inc. v. State, Department OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, which had vacated the citation, and reinstated the Board's order upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' citation of APComPower for serious asbestos-work violations.
• Long v. State Dept. OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2013). The court affirmed the denial of Aileen Long's workers' compensation claim for her husband's death, but reversed the denial of temporary and interim benefits, remanded to the Department of Labor and Industries, and awarded Long attorney fees of $25,249.
• Montaney v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Montaneys' claim against J-M Manufacturing, finding enough evidence for a jury to infer Montaney was exposed to asbestos-cement pipe JMM sold.
• Walston v. Boeing Company (2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of Boeing's summary judgment motion and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Boeing, ruling against Walston.
• Abbay v. Aurora Pump Company (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing George and Lynne Abbay's asbestos suit against the manufacturer and supplier respondents, and remanded, holding the disclaimer ambiguous and clarified in Abbay's favor.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2011). The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Arnolds' CR 60(b)(3) motion to vacate summary judgment for Lockheed, because the earlier appeal had already decided that the Walsh-Healey Act creates no duty to the Arnolds.
• Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of the Morgans' claims against the pump and valve makers (Aurora, Buffalo, IMO, Warren, Weir and Powell) and remanded for trial.
• Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Warren Pumps, Inc. and against Mary Jo Wangen, individually and as personal representative of William Wangen's estate, and affirmed the order on reconsideration.
• Yankee v. APV North America, Inc. (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for APV dismissing Siemieniec's claims and reversed the denial of summary judgment on Yankee's failure-to-warn claim, so APV won in both cases.
• Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed on Daniel Arnold's own occupational exposure claim, but reversed it on all other claims by the Arnolds and remanded for trial.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (1st Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, finding material fact issues on Robert Cashman's exposure to asbestos in Pacific's equipment, and upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case for spoliation, so Darlyne Cashman's estate prevailed on both points.
• Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of summary judgment for the respirator manufacturers (American Optical, Mine Safety Appliances, North Safety Products), defeating Macias's failure-to-warn claims.
• Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pacific Scientific Company, rejecting the estate's claims because it did not show Cashman was exposed to asbestos in Pacific's original products; it did not reach Pacific's spoliation cross-appeal.
• Butler v. Amtico International Inc. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing James and Kathleen Butler's claim against Domco Products, the successor to tile maker Azrock, finding enough evidence of exposure and cumulative causation for trial.
• Kimball v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Elliott Company and ruled for Ernest Kimball, finding enough evidence of exposure and causation for a jury; it did not review the order striking evidence.
• Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (1st Division, 2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial final judgment after a bench trial, holding Viad Corporation was not liable as successor to Griscom-Russell for its asbestos-related liabilities, so Viad won and the Paynes lost on this issue.
• 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.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

• Deem v. William Powell Co. (2022). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Sherri Deem's maritime wrongful death claim as time-barred against The William Powell Co., John Crane, and Crosby Valve, and remanded; the claim accrued at death, not at diagnosis.
• Atchinson v. Howmet Aerospace, Inc. (2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Alcoa (Howmet Aerospace) against the estate of Clinton Casey, upheld the denial of certification to the Washington Supreme Court, and denied the renewed certification motion.
• Jack v. Dco, LLC (2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad and judgment as a matter of law for Ford and DCo, so the Jacks lost on all claims.
• Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants (Goodyear, Crosby Valve, John Crane, Flowserve, Weir Valves, Warren Pumps) against Maria Varney, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Donald Varney's declaration.
• Curtis v. Abb Incorporated (2015). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment for ABB, Eaton and Schneider Electric and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for plaintiff Christopher Curtis on the exposure and product identification question.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington

• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022). The court rescinded its earlier order excluding plaintiff's experts Drs. Tarin and Cohen on specific causation and denied Honeywell's Daubert motion, so plaintiff Strong prevailed on this motion; no Daubert hearing was held.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant's fifth defense, because material facts about the decedent's exposure to other asbestos remained disputed; Honeywell prevailed on the motion.