What is asbestosis: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve asbestosis: 395 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see What is asbestosis.

District of Columbia

• Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981). The court denied the joint motion for summary judgment by Johns-Manville and the other asbestos defendants, holding the widow's claims were neither time-barred nor barred by the workers' compensation settlement.

Florida

• American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (2011). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District, holding that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to the asbestosis plaintiffs, who prevailed over American Optical and the other asbestos defendants.
• Williams v. American Optical Corporation (4th District, 2008). The appellate court reversed the trial courts' dismissals of the plaintiffs' asbestosis claims, holding the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act could not be applied to already-accrued claims, and remanded for further proceedings; plaintiffs won, defendants lost.
• Fernandez v. Union Carbide Corp. (3rd District, 2006). The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide Corporation, rejecting the plaintiff's challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• Celotex Corp. v. Meehan (1988). The Florida Supreme Court quashed all three Third District decisions: it held Meehan's New York-barred claim was revived by a new New York statute and could proceed, remanded Nance for a significant-relationships determination, and let Colon's Florida-based claim proceed.
• Landrum v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (3rd District, 1988). The Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied Landrum's petition for certiorari, leaving in place the trial court's order for an autopsy if he died during the litigation, so Armstrong and the other defendants prevailed on this point (one judge dissented).
• Celotex Corp. v. Copeland (1985). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's approval of market share liability (reinstating dismissal of that theory but allowing Copeland to amend his complaint), and approved the Third District's ruling that the statute of limitations could not be decided by summary judgment, so the Copelands may proceed against the asbestos manufacturers.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox (3rd District, 1985). The appeals court affirmed the money judgment for plaintiff Milton Cox against Eagle-Picher Industries, rejecting Eagle-Picher's challenge to the admission of cancer-risk evidence and its other claimed errors.
• Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (3rd District, 1985). The en banc court (by a 4-4 tie) left the revised panel opinion standing, which reversed summary judgment for the defendants and remanded, and certified a question on the borrowing statute to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Nance v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (3rd District, 1985). The en banc appeals court reversed the summary judgment that had gone to the asbestos defendants on limitations grounds and remanded, because the record did not show whether the claim arose in Florida or Virginia; it later certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Copeland v. Celotex Corp. (3rd District, 1984). The appeals court reversed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the Copelands' third amended complaint against Celotex, held that it stated a cause of action, and remanded for further proceedings.

Georgia

• Putzel Elect. Contractors v. Jones (2006). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's affirmance of the workers' compensation award to Allen Ray Jones, rejecting the limitation and insufficient-exposure arguments of Putzel Electric Contractors and its insurer CNA Risk Management.
• Kellogg Co. v. Pinkston (2001). The Court of Appeals vacated the $4.4 million default judgment for the Pinkstons against Kellogg-Eggo and remanded with direction to dismiss the complaint, because the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision left the court without subject matter jurisdiction.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack (1997). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Edgar Wommack against John Crane, Inc., upholding denial of Crane's motions for directed verdict and new trial and its evidentiary and procedural rulings.
• Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. (1982). The court dismissed the market share/industrywide liability, implied warranty and intentional tort counts in the asbestosis cases, in favor of the defendant manufacturers, but refused to dismiss the fraud count in the Buie and Starling cases.

Illinois

• Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (2015). The court denied General Electric's motion in limine (joined by John Crane) to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the plaintiff estate won the ruling.
• Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (2015). The court denied the defendants' (John Crane, Velan Valve and Honeywell) Daubert motion to limit the plaintiff's expert Dr. Vuskovich's testimony, and found a hearing unnecessary.
• Kochera v. General Electric Company (2015). The district court denied General Electric's motion in limine, joined by Owens-Illinois and John Crane, to exclude plaintiff Kochera's medical expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the plaintiff won the ruling.
• McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015). The district court denied the defendants' motions in limine to exclude or limit plaintiff Gerald McAlvey's exposure expert Jerome Spear, so the plaintiff prevailed on the motions.
• McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015). The district court denied Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, finding enough circumstantial evidence of exposure for plaintiff McAlvey's claim to go forward.
• Neureuther v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015). The court denied defendant John Crane's motion (joined by Warren Pumps) to exclude plaintiff Charles Neureuther's expert, Dr. Matthew Vuskovich, finding him qualified and his methodology reliable under Daubert.
• Neureuther v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015). The court denied the motion in limine by CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), joined by Crane Co. and Warren Pumps, to exclude plaintiff Charles Neureuther's expert Dr. Vuskovich, so the expert may testify.
• Smith v. Illinois Central R. Co. (4th District, 2015). The appellate court reversed the judgment for plaintiff James Smith against Illinois Central Railroad and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court barred the railroad from presenting evidence of Smith's earlier work at the UNARCO asbestos plant.
• Holloway v. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation (4th District, 2014). The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation of Illinois after a jury verdict and the denial of a new trial, so Carol Holloway lost.
• McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and the jury verdicts for the three plaintiffs, and ordered judgment entered for Owens Corning and Owens-Illinois because the evidence did not prove a civil conspiracy.
• McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (4th District, 1998). The appellate court affirmed the jury verdicts for plaintiffs Bicknell, Thacker and McClure against Owens Corning Fiberglas and (in McClure) Owens-Illinois, and remanded only so the trial court could apply setoffs for settlements with other defendants.
• Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd. (1994). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and the $213,811.79 judgment for the plaintiff estate against Owens-Corning, holding Owens-Corning waived its challenge to the conspiracy counts by answering and going to verdict.
• Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd. (4th District, 1993). Affirmed the judgment on the $213,811.79 verdict for the plaintiff executor against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, upholding denial of OCF's motion to dismiss the civil conspiracy counts and the default judgment on liability entered as a sanction.
• Betts v. Manville Personal Injury Trust (4th District, 1992). The appellate court reversed the plaintiffs' jury judgments against the Manville Trust and against Grefco and remanded for new trials, but affirmed the dismissals, summary judgment, directed verdicts and setoff ruling that went against Dietrich, Smith, the Mendiolas and Stewart.
• Thacker v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1992). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, which had upheld the jury verdicts for plaintiff Lois Thacker and denied the Manville Fund's request for judgment n.o.v.
• Thacker v. Unr Industries, Inc. (4th District, 1991). The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict judgments for plaintiff Lois Thacker against the Manville Corporation Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, rejecting its requests for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial.
• Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (4th District, 1991). The appellate court reversed all the judgments, both those for plaintiffs Wehmeier, Bratcher, Schultz and Cochran and those for the Fund against Gray and Tynan, and remanded for a new trial.
• Owens Corning Fiberglas v. Ind. Comm'n (4th District, 1990). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, which upheld the Industrial Commission's death-benefit award to the widow, Charlotte Hammond, against Owens Corning Fiberglas and denied Owens Corning credit for her loss of consortium recovery.
• H & H Plumbing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (5th District, 1988). Affirmed the circuit court's confirmation of the Industrial Commission's award of temporary total disability and 10% permanent disability benefits to claimant Carl Wade against employer H & H Plumbing.
• VaSalle v. Celotex Corp. (1st District, 1987). The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant asbestos-insulation companies and remanded, holding the estate's lung cancer claim was not shown to be time-barred.
• Zupan v. Industrial Com. (5th District, 1986). The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's reversal of the Industrial Commission's denial of benefits, ruling for claimant Paul Zupan and against his employer National Steel.
• Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos (1981). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of summary judgment for the defendants (Johns-Manville and others) and remanded to the circuit court, so the plaintiff's estate may proceed on the asbestosis claim.
• Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1st District, 1979). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment that the circuit court had granted to all defendants on limitations grounds and remanded, so the plaintiff estate may proceed and a fact-finder will decide when Nolan knew or should have known of his asbestosis.

Indiana

• Hedden v. CBS Corporation (2015). The court granted summary judgment to Crown Cork & Seal, CBS, General Electric, Gardner Denver, Link-Belt and Riley Power, and denied it to Crane Co. and John Crane, Inc. on the maritime claims, so the Heddens' Navy-related claims against those two defendants go to trial while their non-maritime Louisville Gas & Electric claims were dismissed.
• Aurand v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2010). The court denied Norfolk Southern Railway's motion for summary judgment based on a release, because material facts about the release's validity were disputed, so Aurand's claim continued.
• Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2003). The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and the trial court's summary judgment for the asbestos defendants, and remanded for the trial court to examine whether any plaintiff falls within the limited exception to the ten-year statute of repose.
• Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2002). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts' summary judgments for A.C. & S., NARCO, Mallinckrodt, Combustion Engineering, Kaiser, WTI, Rapid-American, Weil-McLain and W.R. Grace on statute-of-repose grounds and remanded, siding with the plaintiffs (Harris, Serna, Noppert and Gottschalk families).
• Parks v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for B.M.W., Hunter and Morrison on product identification and upheld the denial of Chicago Firebrick's product-identification motion, but reversed summary judgment for Chicago Firebrick, Uniroyal and Green on the statute of repose and remanded for the Parkses.
• Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1982). The Indiana Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the Industrial Board's denial of asbestosis benefits to Richard Bunker, holding the three-year limitation period constitutional and National Gypsum the winner.
• Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (3rd District, 1981). The Court of Appeals reversed the Industrial Board's denial of disability benefits to Richard Bunker against National Gypsum, holding the three-year limit unconstitutional as applied to him, and remanded.

Iowa

• Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (1993). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Joseph Beeman after the jury verdict, upholding the evidence rulings, Keene's liability, and the trial court's setting aside of the punitive damages and the lost-life-opportunity award, so Manville Fund and Keene lost and Beeman's cross-appeal also failed.
• Wilber v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1991). The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants (Owens-Corning and others) and remanded, holding the widow's mesothelioma suit was not time barred by the earlier asbestosis diagnosis.

Kentucky

• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2023). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Department of Workers' Claims, not the Board of Claims, has jurisdiction over Roger Hall's workers' compensation claim against the Letcher County Board of Education, so Hall prevailed.
• Bruszewski v. Motley Rice, LLC (2012). The court denied Motley Rice's and Provost Umphrey's motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint and Donna Bruszewski's individual claims, but granted dismissal of the claim for "lost" punitive damages.
• Certainteed Corporation v. Dexter (2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court did not err in granting CertainTeed and Garlock a new trial, and it remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide the cross-appeal from the second trial.