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.

Other federal courts

• Sawyer v. Fibreboard Corp. (In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases) (1991). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgments entered on jury verdicts for the plaintiffs in all four cases, rejecting the appeals of Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois.
• Newport News Shipbuilding v. Harris (1991). The Fourth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board's denial of special-fund relief to Newport News Shipbuilding and remanded, ruling for the employer against the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
• Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990). The Second Circuit affirmed the jury judgment for plaintiffs John and Ann Marie Johnson, including compensatory and punitive damages, against Celotex and Owens-Illinois; one judge dissented as to punitive damages.
• Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990). The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the asbestos-product manufacturers on limitations grounds as to plaintiffs Kraciun, Kennedy, Snook, Lilly and Loehndorf, and remanded; it affirmed summary judgment against plaintiff Kenney.
• Kaiser v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1989). The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the asbestos manufacturer defendants, holding Sol Kaiser's suit time-barred by Puerto Rico's one-year statute of limitations, so Kaiser and his family lost.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988). The Tenth Circuit remanded for a new trial after a $2.5 million jury verdict for Menne's estate against Celotex, Eagle-Picher and Fibreboard, because the causation and state-of-the-art jury instructions were flawed.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986). The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiff Jackson against Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan, including compensatory and punitive damages.
• Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Joyce's claims against the asbestos manufacturers as time-barred, the dismissal of his intentional failure-to-warn claim against DuPont under workers' compensation exclusivity, and summary judgment for DuPont on his fraudulent concealment claim.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants: directed verdicts for Raymark, Celotex and Pittsburgh Corning, a jury verdict for the other four defendants, and the challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, against plaintiff Lohrmann.
• Shelly v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the intentional-tort theory but reversed the judgment on the pleadings for Raymark and remanded, because the plaintiffs' allegations of exposure away from the workplace stated a claim under the dual capacity exception.
• Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The Fourth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the asbestos product defendants and remanded, holding the North Carolina statute of repose did not bar the executrix's wrongful death claim.
• Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff Gideon against five asbestos manufacturers, reversed it and entered judgment for defendants Raymark and Standard Insulations, and remanded for the damages to be recalculated.
• Graffagnino v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of all defendants, holding that the widow's wrongful death and survival claims were barred by the 1981 release for released defendants and by the release's assignment for unreleased defendants.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985). The en banc Fifth Circuit declined to create federal common law for asbestos cases, reinstated parts of the panel opinion, and certified the questions on punitive damages, mental anguish and probable future cancer damages to the Mississippi Supreme Court, leaving the Jackson judgment against Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan unresolved pending that answer.
• Rocco v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1985). The Third Circuit affirmed the verdicts against Johns-Manville and Pittsburgh Corning and the denial of new trial and JNOV, but held that payments from non-joint-tortfeasor (Group A) settlements should not reduce the verdict, and that Unarco's pro rata release still reduced the verdict despite its bankruptcy. Delay damages are limited to a non-settling defendant's pro rata share, and the case was remanded because the severed claims against Keene remain open.
• Rosenberg v. Celotex Corp. (1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Barbara Rosenberg's wrongful death suit against Celotex and the other defendants, because she had no valid cause of action under New York law or under the Texas wrongful death statute.
• Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for defendants Eagle-Picher, GAF, Fibreboard and Celotex, upholding exclusion of cancer-risk evidence, the jury instructions, and denial of a new trial against plaintiff Adams.
• Belton v. Fibreboard Corp. (1984). The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for plaintiffs Belton and Crochet against Pittsburgh Corning and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court revealed settlement amounts to the jury and commented on the damages amount.
• Hansen v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury's liability findings for the widow, Beatrice Hansen, against Johns-Manville, but held the compensatory and punitive awards excessive and remanded for a remittitur (accepted or refused at Hansen's option) or a new trial on damages only.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed that Jackson could sue Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan in strict liability and affirmed the handling of settlement credits. It reversed on admitting cancer-risk evidence, the Sumner Simpson letters and the punitive damages awards, and remanded for a new trial.
• Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Div. of Litton (1984). The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's declaratory judgment for the employee-plaintiffs and Owens-Corning against Litton (Ingalls) because subject matter jurisdiction was not shown, and remanded to allow possible amendment of the complaint to plead admiralty jurisdiction.
• Bouvier v. Krenz (1983). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Avondale Shipyards because Bouvier, a shore-based rigger, was not a Jones Act seaman, so his widow's Jones Act claim failed.
• Large v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (1983). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Bucyrus-Erie and Northwest Engineering because Large's injuries occurred more than two years before he sued; one judge would have reversed on the failure-to-warn claim.
• Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for four defendants (Raybestos-Manhattan and others) against plaintiff Thompson, who could not show their products caused his asbestosis; one judge dissented and would have certified the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
• Director, Office OF Workers'comp. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (1982). The Fourth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board's ruling that the special fund must pay part of Langley's compensation, upholding the ALJ's findings for the Director against Newport News Shipbuilding, and remanded the question of asbestosis as a pre-existing condition to the ALJ.
• Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982). The Seventh Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, rejected the district court's rule that the limitations period runs from last exposure, and also rejected the plaintiffs' discovery rule. It held that Wisconsin law starts the period when the disease becomes diagnosable, a rule that favors the manufacturer defendants, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982). The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for Johns-Manville and the other asbestos defendants, which had dismissed Blannie Wilson's survival and wrongful death claims as time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981). The Sixth Circuit reversed the district courts' rulings that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred and remanded for a determination of when each plaintiff's disease manifested, favoring the plaintiffs Clutter, Dwiggins and McGreevey over the asbestos manufacturers.
• Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Johns-Manville and the other manufacturers, holding Albert Fusco's asbestos injury suit was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Petes v. Hayes (1981). The Fifth Circuit reversed the jury verdict for American Optical Corporation and remanded for a new trial, because the first special interrogatory conflicted with the proximate-cause instruction and was likely to mislead the jury, so plaintiff Petes prevailed on appeal.
• Porter v. American Optical Corp. (1981). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against American Optical and the ruling that Continental owed no coverage, but reversed the ruling that Hartford alone was liable and remanded for Aetna and Hartford to share coverage pro rata.
• White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgments n.o.v. and summary judgments for the asbestos manufacturers, held that admiralty jurisdiction applied, and remanded for a new trial under admiralty law, which favored the shipyard workers.
• Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1975). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the $200,000 jury judgment for plaintiff Karjala against Johns-Manville, finding the jury instructions on strict liability/duty to warn and on the statute of limitations consistent with Minnesota law.
• Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Borel's widow against six asbestos insulation manufacturers, including Fibreboard, Johns-Manville, Pittsburgh Corning, Philip Carey, Armstrong Cork and Ruberoid, and denied rehearing.

Pennsylvania

• Finello v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2023). The federal district court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so the Broderick estates' claims against it go forward.
• Vitcavich v. Owens Corning/fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (2023). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and its trustees, holding the estates' claims untimely and rejecting their procedural challenges.
• Jarrett v. Consol. Rail Corp. (2018). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Consolidated Rail Corporation, holding that the worker's 2004 release barred his widow's FELA lung cancer claim.
• Herbert v. American Biltrite (2016). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants (American Biltrite, Azrock, CertainTeed and others), holding the estate's claim time-barred and dismissing it with prejudice; the executor lost.
• Hassell v. The Budd Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (2016). The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of Peggy Hassell's claims against Budd and Resco on Locomotive Inspection Act preemption grounds and remanded, so Hassell prevailed on appeal.
• Haldaman v. Eaton Corporation (2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's orders granting summary judgment to Eaton, P&H Mining, Reading Crane, Morgan Engineering, CBS Corp. and General Electric, and rejected the Haldaman estate's appeal; the Kentile appeal had been discontinued.
• Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2012). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order reversing summary judgment for U.S. Supply and Duro-Dyne, allowing Daley's mesothelioma suit to proceed, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Corley v. Bill Vann Co. (In re Liability Litigation) (2011). The court overruled the plaintiffs' objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the moving defendants win summary judgment on the pre-1979 Alabama one-year limitations bar. It also overruled the defendants' objections and denied summary judgment without prejudice on the one-disease/two-disease question, leaving that issue to the transferor court.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss because Plaintiff Phyllis Kiser's wrongful death claims over Orvin Kiser's mesothelioma were time-barred under Virginia's indivisible cause of action rule.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding the estate's wrongful death claim over Mr. Kiser's mesothelioma was time-barred under Virginia law, so Phyllis Kiser, as executor, lost.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order affirming summary judgment for Union Carbide, Certainteed and Allied Signal, disapproved Quate v. American Standard, and sent the cases back so Summers and Nybeck could proceed.
• Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2009). The Superior Court vacated the trial court's summary judgment for Chesterton, U.S. Supply and Duro-Dyne and remanded, so Daley's mesothelioma suit could go forward.
• Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp. (2007). The en banc Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for John Crane, Inc. against the executrices of Kenneth Abrams and John Shaw, holding the lung cancer claims time-barred.
• Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2005). The en banc Superior Court was evenly divided, so the trial court's summary judgment for the asbestos defendants (CertainTeed and Union Carbide) against plaintiffs Summers and Nybeck was affirmed.
• Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (2004). The Superior Court rejected John Crane's evidentiary challenges but held the $2,000,000 award to Oscar Smalls and $500,000 consortium award to Lizzie Smalls excessive, vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages only.
• Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2002). The Superior Court vacated the judgments because the trial court applied a pro rata setoff for the unsettled Manville Trust claims, remanded for a pro tanto setoff, and otherwise affirmed the rulings against John Crane, Inc. on judgment n.o.v., new trial and remittitur.