Wisconsin Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Wisconsin's courts and the federal courts there: 62 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Wisconsin asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Wisconsin asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Wisconsin Supreme Court

• Springer v. Nohl Electric Products Corp. (2018). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that summary judgment dismissing Powers Holdings and Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc. was proper, so the widow, Penny Springer, lost her claims against them.
• Tatera v. FMC Corp. (2010). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and left in place summary judgment for FMC on the negligence claim, so Vicki Tatera and Walter Tatera's estate lost.
• State v. Harenda Enterprises, Inc. (2008). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the circuit court's summary judgment for the State against Harenda Enterprises, holding that a single layer of a multi-layer sample with more than one percent asbestos makes the material ACM.
• Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999). The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order dismissing the Sophas' mesothelioma action against Owens-Corning and the other defendants as time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.

State appeals courts

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

• Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co. (2024). The court affirmed the jury verdict and liability judgment for Carol Lorbiecki against Pabst Brewing Co., but reversed the punitive damages calculation on her cross-appeal and remanded to raise the punitive award to $11,090,327.10, for a total judgment of $13,419,295.79.
• Pepsi-Cola v. Employers Ins. Co. (2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's summary judgment for Wausau and denial of Pepsi's motion, and remanded with directions to grant Pepsi summary judgment on its duty-to-defend claim; Pepsi won and Wausau lost (one judge dissented).
• Nooyen v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. (2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the four utilities, holding that Jacqueline Nooyen's safe place claims over her husband's mesothelioma were barred by the ten-year construction statute of repose.
• Chapp v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (1st District, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Colgate-Palmolive, dismissing Dale Chapp's claims, because his evidence that his wife used asbestos-contaminated Cashmere Bouquet talc showed only a possibility.
• Mohn v. CBS Corporation (1st District, 2018). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, holding that Wisconsin's construction statute of repose barred Mary Ellen Mohn's claims and that the statute was not unconstitutional.
• Springer v. Nohl Electric Products Corporation (4th District, 2016). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Powers Holdings, Inc. and Fire Brick Engineers Company, Inc. and remanded, finding a genuine factual dispute on whether the 1983 asset sale was fraudulent, in Springer's favor.
• Alexander v. Auer Steel & Heating Co. (1st District, 2015). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Auer Steel & Heating, Milwaukee Stove & Furnace Supply, and CertainTeed, holding the Alexander estate lacked evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer Richard was exposed to their asbestos products.
• Brezonick v. AW Chesteron Company (1st District, 2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed Sandra Brezonick's claims against Pabst, Miller, WEPCO, Sprinkmann and their insurers under the construction statute of repose, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Calewarts v. CR Meyer & Sons Company (3rd District, 2015). The court reversed the judgment dismissing June Calewarts' claims, ordering that several of the defendants' motions in limine be denied in whole or part, while upholding the exclusion of lay opinion that the insulation contained asbestos and of the OSHA documents (a partial win for Calewarts against CR Meyer, International Paper and others).
• Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp. (2015). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corp. and remanded, holding the construction statute of repose did not bar Pamela Peter's claim because Sprinkmann's daily insulation repairs were not improvements to real property, though the pre-1994 damages exception did not apply.
• Estate OF Gregovich v. Auer Steel & Heating Supply (1st District, 2014). The court reversed summary judgment for fourteen defendants (including Cleaver-Brooks, Honeywell, GE and Crane) and remanded for the circuit court to consider Gregovich's materials, but affirmed summary judgment for Rockwell Automation and Lennox Industries.
• Lemberger v. Honeywell International, Inc. (1st District, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Colleen Lemberger, which the trial court had entered after changing the jury's answers, and remanded with directions to enter judgment on the original verdict, a win for Honeywell.
• Viola v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. (2013). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Wisconsin Electric Power Co. on the Viola plaintiffs' Safe Place claim and remanded for trial.
• Calewarts v. CR Meyer and Sons Company (3rd District, 2012). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Philip Morris USA, but reversed summary judgment for CR Meyer and Sons, International Paper (and Thilmany), and Colonial Heights Packaging and remanded for further proceedings, siding with June Calewarts on those defendants.
• Delsart v. Albany Felt Company, Inc. (3rd District, 2012). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order granting Honeywell's second motion to reconsider, which reversed leave for Delsart to amend his complaint and left the case dismissed.
• Risse v. Building Services Industrial Supply, Inc. (1st District, 2012). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders excluding the school survey records and granting summary judgment to Building Services Industrial Supply and L&S Insulation, so Mrs. Risse lost; one judge dissented.
• Singer v. Pneumo Abex, LLC. (1st District, 2012). The court reversed the judgment for Singer entered after a jury verdict and remanded with directions to grant Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion, because the record did not show Pender was exposed to Abex's brake shoes.
• Tatera v. FMC Corp. (2009). The court affirmed summary judgment for FMC on Vicki Tatera's strict liability claim but reversed summary judgment on her negligence claim and remanded for further proceedings.
• Zielinski v. AP Green Indus., Inc. (2003). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Firebrick Engineers and Powers Holdings and remanded, finding genuine fact disputes for the Zielinski plaintiffs on whether Firebrick supplied asbestos products to Ladish and whether Zielinski was exposed to them.
• Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2002). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and related orders for Mary Anderson, upholding the jury's finding that Combustion Engineering was 29 percent responsible for her husband's death.
• International Paper Co. v. Labour & Indus. Rev. Com'n (2001). The court affirmed the circuit court order upholding the Labor and Industry Review Commission's ruling that International Paper, not the Work Injury Supplemental Benefit Fund, must pay Lorraine Wieseler's death benefits.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

• Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2019). The Seventh Circuit dismissed Weyerhaeuser's interlocutory appeal as moot because the district court had since granted Weyerhaeuser summary judgment on the merits; the estates' motion to dismiss the appeal was granted.
• Pecher v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2017). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against Weyerhaeuser and Owens-Illinois, and ordered plaintiffs' counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

• Babler v. Soo Line Railroad Company (2022). The court granted the Bablers' motion to remand to Milwaukee County Circuit Court because Soo Line Railroad's removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3); Soo Line lost its bid to stay in federal court.
• Ahnert v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau (2018). The court denied the Ahnert plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its earlier Daubert rulings barring industrial hygienist Kenneth Garza's reports and testimony, so the exclusion favoring Pabst, Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance and WEPCO stood.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2017). The court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling that factual disputes prevented it from deciding that the Safe Place Statute or the construction statute of repose barred the Ahnerts' claims, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court denied Wisconsin Electric Power Company's motion for summary judgment on the premises-owner, statute of repose and punitive damages issues, so Beverly Ahnert's claims go to trial.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The court denied Pabst Brewing Company's motion for summary judgment, leaving the executrix's safe-place negligence claim over Daniel Ahnert's mesothelioma to proceed against Pabst.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court denied Sprinkmann Sons Corporation's and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Beverly Ahnert's claims against Sprinkmann will go to a jury.
• Ahnert v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (2016). The district court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against Beverly Ahnert's claims and dismissed the case as to Foster Wheeler, finding the claims barred by Wisconsin's construction statute of repose.
• Ahnert v. Brand Insulation Inc. (2015). The court granted CBS Corporation's and General Electric's motions for judgment on the pleadings, holding Beverly Ahnert's mesothelioma suit against them barred by claim preclusion, and dismissed both defendants.
• Arendt v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois, dismissing with prejudice the claims of Georgia Arendt and her husband's estate as barred by issue preclusion and the Wisconsin statute of limitations, and ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why they should not pay Owens-Illinois' attorneys' fees.
• Herr v. Linde LLC (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Linde LLC (Airco) against plaintiff Janice Herr and the Estate of Richard Herr, finding no evidence Herr used Airco's gloves and, alternatively, that the strict liability claim was released in the earlier M&F settlement.
• Nuutinen v. CBS Corporation (2015). The court denied CBS's renewed summary judgment motion based on Wisconsin's construction statute of repose, granted John Crane's summary judgment motion because the plaintiff offered no evidence against it, and ruled on the parties' motions in limine.
• Spychalla v. Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc. (2015). The district court denied summary judgment to Boeing, Cessna and General Electric, granted and denied the motions in limine in part, and allowed Boeing to file a late government contractor defense motion.
• Ahnert v. Brand Insulation Inc. (2014). The court granted Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss, holding that the prior with-prejudice dismissal of the 2010 asbestosis suit barred Beverly Ahnert's 2013 mesothelioma suit against Owens-Illinois.
• Alliance Laundry Systems LLC v. Eaton Corporation (2013). The court granted Eaton's motion to dismiss only as to Alliance's implied good faith and fair dealing count and denied it on the breach of contract, promissory estoppel and declaratory judgment counts, so those claims against Eaton went forward.
• Anderson v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co. (2013). The court granted Procter & Gamble's motion in limine, reversing its earlier view and holding the repose-statute exception did not apply, so evidence of exposures during improvement and new-construction work is barred at trial, while maintenance exposures remain a fact question.
• Anderson v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co. (2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims proceed and are not barred by the statute of repose.
• Anderson v. the Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company (2013). The court denied Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company's amended motion for summary judgment, so the estate of electrician Lloyd Anderson, represented by his wife Beverly Anderson, may proceed on its premises-owner negligence and wrongful death claims.
• Sybron Transition v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford (2000). After a court trial, the court granted Security's motion to amend the judgment, allocating the Press settlement by months and cutting Security's share to $230,208.39. It granted Sybron's motion only to clarify one finding of fact, and denied Sybron's request for attorneys' fees.
• Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981). The federal district court denied the summary judgment motions of Johns-Manville, Keene, Armstrong Cork, Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and the third-party defendants, holding that the Wisconsin limitations period runs from the plaintiff's last exposure to any asbestos-containing product, and it set a schedule for further summary judgment motions on lack of recent contact.

U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin

• Kappel v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2018). The court accepted the plaintiffs' amended complaint, granted Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss the nuisance claims as time-barred, and denied it in all other respects, so the plaintiffs' negligence claim and punitive damages claim go forward.
• Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2018). The court granted Weyerhaeuser's summary judgment motions in both cases, so the Kilty and Spatz plaintiffs lost their negligence claims. It also affirmed the magistrate judge's denial of late depositions but vacated the discovery sanction against plaintiffs.
• Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2018). The court denied 3M Company's motions for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' strict liability and negligence claims over the 8710 respirator go to trial.
• Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2018). The district court granted in part and denied in part Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss: it dismissed the nuisance claims as time-barred and struck reliance on federal Clean Air Act standards (unopposed), but let the negligence and punitive damages claims go forward, so the plaintiffs won on those points.