Asbestos and Lung Cancer: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve lung cancer: 256 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Asbestos and Lung Cancer.

Alabama

• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2017). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's bench-trial finding that the Tennessee Valley Authority was liable to the Bobo estate, vacated the damages award because it included written-off medical expenses, and remanded for recalculation.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2015). After a bench trial, the federal court did not enter judgment for either side and instead certified two unsettled questions of Alabama law (a premises owner's duty in take-home asbestos cases, and the causation standard for multiple exposures) to the Alabama Supreme Court in the case brought by Barbara Bobo's estate against the Tennessee Valley Authority.
• Bradberry v. Carrier Corporation ET AL. (2011). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgments for Carrier Corporation and the other solvent defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that codefendant Leslie Controls' bankruptcy stayed the whole case.
• Greene v. CSX Transp., Inc. (2002). The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for CSX Transportation, holding the FELA personal-injury survival claims of the personal representatives of two deceased railroad employees were time-barred.

California

• Klinger v. Alderete (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion of Alderete and her attorneys, which defeated Klinger's malicious prosecution suit, and affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs to them.
• Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 6th Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the defense jury verdict for Volkswagen, Ford, Nissan and Pneumo-Abex against Steiner's widow, and affirmed the order striking Volkswagen's and Ford's expert witness fees.
• Swanson v. Simpson Timber Company (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). Affirmed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit for Simpson Timber Company, holding it owed no duty for secondary exposure and that the self-exposure claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity.
• Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Hennessy Industries against the Barker family's wrongful death claims, with one justice dissenting.
• Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries on the strict products liability and negligence claims, holding plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend, and affirmed as to all other causes of action.
• Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding the plaintiffs' brake-grinding-machine negligence and strict liability claims were sufficient to proceed.
• Ransom v. Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. (2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Lori Ransom (successor to Glade Cookus) against Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd., rejecting Calaveras's challenge to the jury's 24 percent fault allocation; one justice dissented.
• Brumley v. Fdcc California, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal reversed in part the dismissal under the five-year rule, reinstating the wrongful death, loss of consortium and cancer survivorship claims against the defendants, while the noncancer survivorship claims stayed barred.
• McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2002). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Kaiser Gypsum and Kaiser Cement, holding the plaintiffs, the family of James McGonnell, had not shown a triable issue that he was exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containing products.
• Howard v. Owens Corning (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens Corning on a jury verdict that Howard's asbestos exposure was not a cause of his injury, and rejected the Howards' claim that they were entitled to a directed verdict.
• Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal held that ACL, a raw asbestos supplier, was properly held strictly liable, but that the trial court erred in not applying Proposition 51; it remanded for allocation of noneconomic damages between Owens Corning and ACL and otherwise affirmed the judgment for Arena.
• Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments for General Motors, holding that the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempted the railroad workers' and survivors' state-law tort claims over asbestos in locomotives.
• Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, which had ordered a new trial for Owens-Illinois. It held that the burden-shifting instruction was error but harmless, and that the tobacco company defense issue was controlled by Richards, so the plaintiffs' judgment against Owens-Illinois was not overturned.
• Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders staying the Hansens' California asbestos actions against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and others on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs lost and were directed to file in Montana.
• Williamson v. Plant Insulation Co. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Williamson plaintiffs against Plant Insulation only as to the decedent's noneconomic damages and anticipated economic damages, remanded for a limited new trial on economic damages, and otherwise affirmed, including the finding that the asbestosis claim was timely.
• Skip Fordyce, Inc. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (4th Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1983). The Court of Appeal annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's death benefit award to Barry's widow because no substantial evidence showed Barry was exposed to asbestos at Skip Fordyce, and returned the case to the Board; Skip Fordyce and Fireman's Fund won, though the court upheld the finding that Fireman's Fund was the carrier.
• Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980). The California Supreme Court denied Johns-Manville's petition for a writ of mandate, leaving in place the trial court's denial of judgment on the pleadings, so the employee's fraud and conspiracy claims for aggravation of his asbestos disease could go forward against his employer.

Connecticut

• Lafayette v. General Dynamics Corp. (2001). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the workers' compensation review board and held that collateral estoppel barred Electric Boat from relitigating causation of the decedent's death, so the widow Kathryn Lafayette prevailed and the case was remanded to the commissioner.

Delaware

• Robinson v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Marianne Robinson, ruling for Union Carbide on both the failure-to-warn claim and the Ohio strict liability claim.
• Harris v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Deere & Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Deere against the plaintiff, because under North Carolina law the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond speculation that the asbestos-containing parts he worked on were made or sold by Deere.
• Davis v. Ace Hardware Corporation (2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Davises' complaint without prejudice for failing to file the medical report required by Florida's Asbestos Act, denying Paccar's separate motion to dismiss as moot, and granting a stay of discovery.
• Turchen v. County Insulation Co. (In re Litigation) (2011). The court imposed a $25,000 Rule 11 sanction on plaintiffs' counsel Thomas Crumplar for misstating authority in opposing County Insulation's summary judgment motion, and referred the matter, including the McCardle-Desco briefing, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
• Rhodes v. Diamond State Port Corporation (2010). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's affirmance of the Industrial Accident Board's denial of the estate's workers' compensation petition, so Diamond State Port Corporation prevailed and Rhodes' estate lost.

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

• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the Daubert motions of defendants Atwood (Valves and Controls US) and Warren Pumps, excluding Dr. Zhang's first cumulative-exposure causation opinion and his asbestosis opinion but allowing his second causation opinion and his pleural plaque opinion.
• Israel v. John Crane, Inc. (2022). The court granted John Crane's motion for summary judgment, holding Norman Israel's maritime-law lung cancer claims time-barred because he knew or should have known of the cause by December 21, 2016.

Georgia

• Bowers v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2023). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's causation expert and its grant of summary judgment to CSX Transportation, so the estate of Luther Bowers lost.

Illinois

• Jones v. Pneumo Abex LLC (5th District, 2021). Affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois on the Joneses' civil conspiracy claims, after the Illinois Supreme Court remanded for a proper analysis.
• Jones v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2019). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's reinstatement of the civil conspiracy claims against Owens-Illinois and Pneumo Abex and remanded to the appellate court to review the circuit court's summary judgment for those defendants under the correct standard.
• Jones v. Pneumo Abex LLC (5th District, 2018). The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois on the civil conspiracy claims and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for plaintiffs John and Deborah Jones.
• Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2017). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil and Owens-Illinois after a jury found cigarettes were the sole cause of Krik's lung cancer, holding that excluding Dr. Frank's causation testimony and the Helsinki document was not an abuse of discretion and that the juror investigation did not prejudice Krik.
• Adams v. Employers Insurance Company OF Wausau (3rd District, 2016). Affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action against the insurers Wausau, TIG and Travelers, so the plaintiffs lost.
• 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.
• Hasenberg v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2014). The court denied the Hasenbergs' motion to remand, holding Crane Co.'s federal officer removal was proper, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice with an order to file an amended complaint naming each defendant in each count.
• Krik v. Crane Co. (2014). The court granted the defendants' motions (Crane, Owens-Illinois, Marley-Wylain and ExxonMobil) to bar plaintiff Krik's experts from offering "Any Exposure," "Each and Every Exposure" and "Single Fiber" causation opinions, and denied Mobil's other requests to bar the experts' testimony about exposure at Mobil facilities.
• 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.
• 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.
• Whitney v. Industrial Com'n (4th District, Industrial Commission Division, 1992). The appellate court affirmed the Industrial Commission's dismissal of Velda Whitney's death-benefits claim against C. Iber & Sons as untimely, because her husband had no disablement within three years of his last asbestos exposure.
• 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.
• 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.
• Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' common law punitive damages claims against the asbestos defendants, including Celotex, because those claims did not survive the decedents' deaths under the Survival Act.
• Froud v. Celotex Corporation (1st District, 1982). The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the punitive damages counts and remanded, ruling for the plaintiff administrators and against the asbestos defendants including Celotex.