Peritoneal Mesothelioma: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve peritoneal mesothelioma: 141 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Peritoneal Mesothelioma.

Arizona

• Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1982). The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision, set aside the Industrial Commission award that dismissed the widow's claim as untimely, and remanded, so the widow won over the employers and carriers.

California

• Carrera v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The magistrate judge recommended denying Johnson & Johnson's request to stay and granting Dana Carrera's motion to remand her case to California state court, for lack of bankruptcy 'related to' jurisdiction or, alternatively, on equitable grounds.
• Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver (2016). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal in Haver (BNSF's demurrer had been sustained) in favor of the Havers, and vacated the Court of Appeal judgment in Kesner (Abex's nonsuit had been reversed), remanding both for further proceedings, finding employers and premises owners owe a duty to household members.
• Marquez v. Pac Operating Limited Partnership (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for PAC Operating Limited Partnership after a jury trial, holding that the trial court properly excluded Anthony Marquez's late-disclosed theory that PAC's predecessor owned the Coalinga city site, and properly denied his new trial motion.
• Collin v. Calportland Company (3rd Appellate District, 2014). The court affirmed summary judgment for CalPortland and Kaiser Gypsum against plaintiff Collin, and reversed summary judgment for J-M Manufacturing and Formosa, so Collin's claims against them go forward.
• Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of nonsuit for Pneumo Abex and held that Abex owed Kesner a duty of care, so the case could go forward for trial on the remaining questions.
• Strickland v. Union Carbide Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Strickland's widow and children against Union Carbide, holding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that exposure to Calidria contributed to his risk of peritoneal mesothelioma.
• Franklin v. Usx Corp. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2001). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against USX Corporation, holding USX was not the successor in interest to Western Pipe & Steel, so the Franklins' verdict of over $5 million could not stand against USX.
• Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both issues; remanded to resolve remaining issues.
• Chevron USA, Inc. v. Wcab (1999). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, which had annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's death benefit award, and ordered the Board's award to widow Lucille Steele reinstated (except the statutory penalty), over Chevron's objection.
• Chevron USA v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 1990). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's order denying Chevron's petition for reconsideration, so the widow and children of Harvey Steele won, and it denied their request for supplemental attorney fees.

Connecticut

• Erhardt v. Bmw OF North America, LLC (2021). The district court denied BMW of North America's motions to preclude the plaintiff's three expert witnesses and denied its motion for summary judgment, so Mr. Erhardt's claims go forward against BMW NA.

Delaware

• Estate of Anderson v. American Seaboard Exteriors (2022). The Superior Court affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's denial of the Estate's workers' compensation claim against American Seaboard Exteriors, finding substantial evidence that Mr. Anderson was not injuriously exposed to asbestos at work and that the one evidentiary error was harmless.
• Weddle v. BP Amoco Chemical Company (2020). The court granted in part the claimant estate's application for attorneys' fees for the successful appeal from the Industrial Accident Board, awarding $31,530 at rates lower than the $42,860 requested; BP Amoco, the employer, was ordered to bear the award.
• Weddle v. BP Amoco Chemical Company (2019). The Superior Court reversed the Industrial Accident Board's dismissal of the mesothelioma compensation petition against BP Amoco and remanded, holding the 1982 asbestosis settlement did not bar the claim.

District of Columbia

• Washington Hospital Center v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (2004). The court affirmed the Department of Employment Services' order finding that claimant Anita Jones gave timely notice of her work-related mesothelioma, so she was eligible for compensation and Washington Hospital Center lost.

Florida

• Stevenson v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2018). The court granted Imerys Talc America's summary judgment motion for lack of specific personal jurisdiction in Florida and dismissed the action against Imerys; the plaintiff lost as to Imerys.
• Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's reversal and ordered the jury verdict and judgment for William Aubin against Union Carbide reinstated.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed denial of a directed verdict on the warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on warning because the jury instruction was misleading; Union Carbide won in part and Aubin lost in part.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on his warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on the warning claim because of a misleading jury instruction.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (3rd District, 2009). Reversed the $24,170,000 judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the letter evidence, the verdict form, the consortium award and the setoff.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (3rd District, 2009). The appeals court reversed the $24.17 million judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the evidence ruling, the verdict form, the consortium award and the settlement setoff.

Georgia

• Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Fields (2013). The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed partial summary judgment for the Fieldses barring Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide from asserting nonparty fault, holding the defendants could rely on the Fieldses' pleading admissions and that the 'right for any reason' rule could not be used to affirm on causation.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Fields (2012). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the Fieldses on the defendants' nonparty-fault defense and affirmed the denial of Union Carbide's summary judgment motion, so the Fieldses won both rulings and the defendants lost.

Illinois

• LaFever v. Ford Motor Company (3rd District, 2023). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting plaintiff Trudy LaFever a new trial after a jury verdict for Ford Motor Company, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Daniels v. Venta Corp. (2nd District, 2022). The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the sixth amended complaint with prejudice and remanded, ruling for plaintiff Anna Daniels against Venta Corporation (formerly ABC), Sycamore Industrial Park Associates and Robert Boey.
• Folta v. Ferro Engineering (1st District, 5th Division, 2014). The appellate court reversed the trial court's section 2-619 dismissal of Ellen Folta's claims against Ferro Engineering and remanded, holding the workers' compensation exclusivity bar did not apply.
• In re Estate OF Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (4th District, 2011). The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for plaintiff, holding that Abex and Honeywell were entitled to judgment n.o.v. because they owed no duty to the decedent; the defendants won and the estate lost.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Indiana

• Roberts v. ACandS, Inc. (2007). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the Worker's Compensation Board's dismissal of the Estate's occupational disease claim against ACandS, holding the dismissal was not premature and the release provision was not unconstitutional as applied.
• Psi Energy, Inc. v. Roberts (2005). The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for William and Beverly Roberts against PSI Energy, holding PSI was not vicariously liable for its contractor ACandS but that the general verdict was supported under the premises liability instructions given to the jury.
• Psi Energy, Inc. v. Roberts (2004). The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of PSI Energy's motions for judgment on the evidence and to correct error, leaving the jury verdict for the Robertses in place against PSI.
• Roberts v. ACandS, Inc. (2004). The Court of Appeals reversed the Worker's Compensation Board's dismissal of William Roberts's occupational disease claim against ACandS as premature and remanded; ACandS lost its bid to end its liability.

Iowa

• Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy Co. (2009). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for MidAmerican Energy and Interstate Power and Light, holding the plant owners owed no duty to warn the spouse of an independent contractor's employee, so Van Fossen lost.
• Fossen v. Midamerican Energy Company (2008). The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for MidAmerican Energy and Interstate Power and Light, holding they owed no duty of care to Ann Van Fossen, so Roger Van Fossen lost.

Kentucky

• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2022). The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board on jurisdiction and on the timeliness of Hall's medical bills, but reversed on interest and remanded for the 6% rate, so Hall prevailed on most points and Letcher County Board of Education prevailed on interest.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2019). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had upheld the Workers' Compensation Board's reversal of the ALJ's finding that Hall's claim was untimely, so Hall (claimant) won against the Letcher County Board of Education, and the case was remanded to the ALJ.

Louisiana

• Lyles v. K&b Louisiana Corporation (2024). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff Pamela Davis Lyles's motion for leave to amend her complaint to add non-diverse insurer Fireman's Fund as a defendant, ruling for the defendants.
• Everett v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2023). The court reversed summary judgment for Peter Kiewit, affirmed summary judgment for Foster Wheeler, reversed the denial of the Everetts' motion for new trial and remanded for a contradictory hearing, and dismissed the defendants' answers to the appeal as moot.
• Reulet v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding no genuine dispute that Kirk Reulet had mesothelioma and that it resulted in his death, over the opposition of Bayer CropScience, Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual.
• Berry v. Anco Insulations (2nd Circuit, 2019). The appeals court affirmed the jury verdict and the judgment after JNOV for Lynda Berry against Foster Wheeler, which totaled $2.25 million after Olin Corp.'s virile share was deducted, and rejected all of Foster Wheeler's assignments of error.
• Lee v. American Supply Co. (3rd Circuit, 2019). The court of appeal reversed the trial court's judgment sustaining Baker Hughes' exception of prescription, which had dismissed the survival claims of David Lee's widow and children, and remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling for the family.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss only as to plaintiffs' wrongful death employer liability claim, which was dismissed with prejudice, and otherwise denied it, so plaintiffs' other wrongful death claims against Ford continue.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019). The court granted Ford's motion to quash the trial subpoena to Matthew Fyie, granted plaintiffs leave to designate Fyie's deposition testimony, and granted Ford's motion to strike plaintiffs' late objections to Ford's counterdesignations of Victor Michel's testimony.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add survival, wrongful death, premises and employer liability claims against Ford, found strict products liability claims already pleaded, and said a continuance would cure prejudice to Ford.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2019). The court denied Ford's and Cummins's motions to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein and Christopher Depasquale, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify.
• Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2019). The court denied Cummins Inc.'s and Ford Motor Company's joint motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Michel's survivors) keep their claims against both defendants.