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.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington

• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Crosby Valve's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crosby Valve from the case, ruling against the plaintiff estate.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied the plaintiff estate's two motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants' affirmative defenses of alternative asbestos exposure in the Dutch Merchant Marine and at Tektronix, so the defendants kept those defenses.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion for sanctions against O'Reilly Automotive Stores, imposing a $1,000 sanction and ordering amended discovery responses, but refusing sanctions over the corporate representative's preparation.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Toyota Motor Corporation's and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.'s renewed motion for a protective order, and set the final form of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices the plaintiff estate could use.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The federal district court granted Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff did not show that the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing Ingersoll-Rand product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff estate did not show the decedent was exposed to an asbestos product attributable to Air & Liquid.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted summary judgment to Standard Motor Products and Parker-Hannifin and dismissed them from the case because the plaintiff could not show the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing EIS brakes they made or sold.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Henry Company LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that Henry made an asbestos-containing product the decedent used.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, ruling against the estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Standard Motor Products' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the decedent was exposed to an SMP product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied National Automotive Parts Association's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiff estate won this motion and the case against NAPA continues.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Viking Pump's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Viking from the case, against the plaintiffs, who offered no evidence connecting Viking to the decedent's mesothelioma.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion to compel, ordering O'Reilly to serve complete answers to the interrogatories and document requests by May 13, 2019, and declining to impose sanctions.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The district court denied O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against O'Reilly (Schuck's) go forward.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add DCo LLC as a defendant, over DCo's opposition.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied Armstrong International's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's untimely request to reconsider the exclusion of Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's report, and denied Armstrong's motion to exclude the Sanders Declaration (denied as moot for the other two exhibits).
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking Mr. Varney's mesothelioma to its products.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The district court granted Parker-Hannifin's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Donald and Maria Varney and dismissed Parker-Hannifin from the case, because plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking its products to Mr. Varney's mesothelioma.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' belated request for reconsideration, denied Warren's motion to strike as moot, and dismissed Warren from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Weir Valves' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' request for reconsideration of the order excluding Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's opinion, and dismissed Weir Valves from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted defendant John Crane Inc.'s summary judgment motion and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of causation; its motion to strike was denied as moot.
• Yaw v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Mrs. Yaw's unopposed motion to amend her complaint to add a wrongful death claim, and reserved ruling on GE, Westinghouse (CBS) and Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion pending supplemental briefing on the Supreme Court's DeVries decision.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON (2018). The court entered a joint proposed pretrial order setting the claims, defenses, admitted facts, witnesses and a March 26, 2018 jury trial against Scapa Dryer Fabrics; it decided no merits question, so neither side prevailed.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The district court denied Geraldine Barabin's motion for a partial new trial on non-economic damages and denied Scapa Dryer Fabrics' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury's negligence verdict for the Barabins in place.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The court ordered plaintiff's counsel James Nevin to show cause why he and Brayton Purcell LLP should not be sanctioned ($1,000 and a written reprimand) for quoting an excluded exhibit to the jury in the trial against Scapa Dryer Fabrics.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The district court denied Scapa Dryer Fabrics' motion for summary judgment, so Geraldine Barabin's claim over her husband's mesothelioma goes to trial.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The court granted in part and denied in part Scapa's two motions to exclude expert testimony: it barred DePasquale's numerical exposure range and the causation testimony of Drs. Smith and Cohen, but allowed the rest of Barabin's exposure and causation experts (Brodkin, Tarin with limits, Compton).
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Felts, Inc. (2018). The court excluded the testimony of plaintiff Geraldine Barabin's expert, Dr. Arnold Brody, as needlessly cumulative of another expert's testimony, a ruling that favored defendant Scapa Dryer Felts.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The court granted Saberhagen's motion for judgment on the pleadings because the Claytons sued more than three years after Saberhagen dissolved, denied their Rule 56(d) discovery request, and denied their motion for relief from a deadline as moot.
• Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The federal district court denied William and Jill Clayton's motion for an expedited December 2018 trial against the defendants and said it would enter its standard scheduling order.
• Jack v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2018). The court approved the parties' stipulation and extended defendant M.W. Custom Papers' expert disclosure deadline for Dr. Godwin from April 18, 2018 to May 2, 2018.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018). The court granted Ford's motion to exclude Charles Cushing's testimony on Mr. Jack's automotive asbestos exposure, and denied the defendants' other motions to exclude the plaintiffs' experts (Fitzgerald, Gordon, Brodkin, Brody, Castleman, Longo), so the plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018). The district court denied the Jack plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and stay, leaving in place its earlier summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad on both the take-home and bystander exposure claims.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018). The court granted Union Pacific's summary judgment motion and granted in part and denied in part the motions of Ford and Borg-Warner, leaving Plaintiffs' exposure claims for removal of Borg-Warner clutches and for several Ford brake exposures for trial. It also granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on some defense claims, such as superseding cause, the sophisticated purchaser defense and, against Borg-Warner, failure to mitigate, and denied it on others.
• Mikelsen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The district court denied Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs, Mr. Mikelsen's widow and his personal representative, won and the claims against Warren Pumps went forward.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The district court denied defendant BNS Company's motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature, letting plaintiffs Donald and Maria Varney continue discovery, and also denied BNS's motion to strike.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The court granted Fryer-Knowles, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it, because the company was not incorporated until after the plaintiff's last alleged exposure and the plaintiffs did not respond.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018). The court denied the motions of Taco, Inc. and Aurora Pump Company to dismiss for failure to state a claim, personal jurisdiction and standing, and to strike the prejudgment interest request, so the Varneys won at this stage. The jurisdiction, standing and interest rulings were without prejudice.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (2017). The court granted the parties' stipulated motion and continued the initial disclosure, Rule 26(f) conference and joint status report deadlines until one month after it rules on Plaintiff's motion to remand.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Honeywell International's motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against Honeywell with prejudice and denying leave to amend.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Imerys Talc America Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it with prejudice and denying leave to amend and Imerys's request for attorney's fees.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion for a priority trial setting, because the existing March 5, 2018 trial date already matched the seven-month timeline they requested.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court denied the Hodjeras' motion to amend their complaint as futile and dismissed with prejudice the claims against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, the Volkswagen entities, the Dana entities, Imerys Talc America and Honeywell for lack of specific jurisdiction in Washington.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Dana Companies, LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them until June 2, 2017 to move to amend.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group Canada, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it without prejudice, with leave to seek amendment by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Volkswagen Group of America's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the Hodjeras' claims against it without prejudice and allowing them to move to amend by June 2, 2017.
• Jack v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2017). The district court granted the defendants' emergency motion to preserve evidence and ordered that Patrick Jack's remains be made available for an autopsy, over his widow Leslie Jack's objection, with the parties to confer on the details.
• Griffin v. CBS Corporation (2016). The court granted plaintiff Sarah Griffin's motion and transferred the case to the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), rejecting defendant SDG&E's argument that transfer should be under § 1406.