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.

Texas

• Payne v. BNSF Railway Company (2nd District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway Company against Donna Payne, holding that Neil Harrah's 2017 release barred her FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for Rapid-American on limitations grounds and remanded to the trial court, so Pustejovsky's mesothelioma suit may proceed.
• North American Refractory Co. v. Easter (13th District, 1999). The court of appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Moss's estate, Easter, Roberts and the two spouses against North American Refractory Co. (NARCO), including the $1.5 million punitive award.
• In re Ethyl Corp. (1998). The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, leaving in place the trial court's order setting twenty-two workers' asbestos premises claims for a single trial, so the defendants (Ethyl, USX, Todd Shipyards and Texas City Refining) lost and the plaintiffs won.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone (1998). The Texas Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals' judgments for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding any error in excluding OCF's mitigation evidence harmless and that the punitive awards, alone or aggregated with prior paid awards, did not violate due process.
• Pustejovsky v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (4th District, 1998). The court affirmed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Pittsburgh Corning and Rapid-American, holding the widow's mesothelioma claim was barred by limitations because it accrued in 1982 with the asbestosis diagnosis.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak (3rd District, 1996). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs (about $1.8 million compensatory and $3.7 million punitive damages) against Owens-Corning, overruling all eleven points of error.
• Keene Corp. v. Rogers (6th District, 1993). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Jessie and Eleanor Rogers and Robert and Jo Emma Lofton against Keene Corporation, holding that the recusal, jury charge and expert testimony rulings were not error and that the erroneous admission of the Mancuso deposition and reports was harmless.
• Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993). The court of appeals affirmed the jury's zero past-damages awards for the workers and wives against Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard, Pittsburgh-Corning and Keene, but reversed the limitations bar against the Spikes plaintiffs and reversed the Burt and Friley judgments for a wrong prejudgment-interest start date, remanding each.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool (6th District, 1991). The court affirmed the Williams judgment and, in the Pool/Strong/Sledge/Freeman case, affirmed in favor of the plaintiffs except that it set aside the $100,000 future medical award to Pool (new trial unless he remits) and the punitive damages against Garlock.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990). After a class trial of 2,298 asbestos plaintiffs, the court approved its sampling-based damages plan, set rules for prejudgment interest, the Johns-Manville settlement and punitive multipliers against Pittsburgh-Corning, Fibreboard and Celotex, and held ACL liable to only one plaintiff.
• Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (9th District, 1988). The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Raymark Industries and the other asbestos product defendants, holding Mertice Pecorino's mesothelioma claim barred by limitations, and said the 1981 release and assignment would also have barred it.
• Castorina v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. (1984). After a bench trial, the court found for defendant Lykes Bros. Steamship Co. and against longshoreman Castorina, holding the claim timely but finding no negligence under § 905(b) and no unseaworthiness.
• Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980). The court granted plaintiff Mooney partial summary judgment, barring ten defendants from relitigating whether their asbestos insulation products were defective and unreasonably dangerous; it denied summary judgment against Nicolet on whether it made or sold asbestos products.

Utah

• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2014). The district court denied Crane Co.'s motion, joined by other defendants, to exclude plaintiff Arva Anderson's expert Dr. Abraham's specific causation testimony, so the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.

Virginia

• Cole v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2017). The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court's grant of Norfolk Southern's plea in bar, holding the 2000 release barred the executor's FELA lung cancer claim, so the estate lost.
• Wilson v. AC&S, Inc. (2015). The federal magistrate judge granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Rorie Wilson, finding no evidence that its arc chutes released asbestos fibers at levels that caused his disease, and denied as moot a motion to limit another expert's testimony.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2013). Answering a question certified by the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the executrix's mesothelioma wrongful death claim accrued at the earlier asbestosis diagnosis, not the mesothelioma diagnosis, which favored the defendants (two justices dissented).
• Robertson v. DuPONT (2002). The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the Workers' Compensation Commission, which had denied the widow's claim for temporary total disability benefits and set the permanent partial disability benefits using the wage Mr. Robertson earned at DuPont twenty-six years earlier, so DuPont prevailed and the widow lost.
• Roller v. Basic Const. Co. (1989). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the Industrial Commission's dismissal of Mrs. Roller's claim as time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the subrogation question, so Mrs. Roller won on limitations and Basic Construction lost.
• Saunders v. HK Porter Co., Inc. (1986). The court granted summary judgment to the defendants against Grimes and Saunders because their claims were time-barred, dismissing their cases with prejudice, and denied summary judgment against Pruden because defendants did not show he was injured more than two years before suing.
• Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984). The court granted summary judgment to Celotex and the joining defendants (Owens-Corning, Armstrong, Eagle-Picher, Keene, Pittsburgh Corning), holding all of plaintiff Joyce's asbestos-related claims barred by Virginia's two-year statute of limitations.
• Large v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (1981). The court granted the power shovel manufacturers Bucyrus-Erie and Northwest Engineering partial summary judgment, holding the plaintiff's respiratory injury claims time-barred; his hearing loss claim was not challenged.

Washington

• 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.
• Casey v. Alcoa Corporation (2020). The district court granted Alcoa's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Clinton Casey's asbestos claims against Alcoa with prejudice because the Washington Industrial Insurance Act barred them.
• Herring v. Texaco, Inc. (2007). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, holding Todd's bankruptcy discharged Herring's claim because he was entitled only to publication notice.
• 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.
• Kilpatrick v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (1994). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for the Department of Labor and Industries and held the three widows were entitled to survivor's benefits at the 100 percent rate, remanding for attorney fees and further proceedings.
• 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.
• Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (1987). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court, leaving in place the $183,372 jury verdict for Albert Lockwood against Raymark Industries.

West Virginia

• Murphy v. ST. Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (2024). The intermediate appeals court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's order denying Linda Murphy dependents' benefits, so the employer and the Old Fund prevailed over the widow.
• Bennett v. West Virginia Office OF Insurance Commissioner, W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 2016 (2016). The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Review's decision granting dependent's benefits to Minnie Bennett, upholding August 16, 1983 as the date of last exposure and Corning, Inc. as the sole chargeable employer.
• Adams v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (2003). The court reversed the denial of a new trial for Conrail and the other railroad defendants as to John Robinson and Ronald Shaffer, because their smoking histories should not have been excluded. It affirmed the denial as to Walter Knight and remanded.

Wisconsin

• 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 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.