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.

Louisiana

• Grant v. American Sugar Refining, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2007). The appeals court reversed the summary judgment for Eagle, Inc. and remanded to the trial court, ruling for plaintiff Thelonius Grant because genuine factual issues about exposure remained and the trial court misapplied the expert-evidence standard.
• Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994). The court ruled before trial that pre-comparative-fault Louisiana law and virile-share apportionment governed the wrongful death claim, denied plaintiffs' per se unreasonably dangerous motion, admitted the OSHA and EPA publications, and denied Owens-Corning's motions on third-party medical payments, mental anguish and reverse bifurcation.

Maryland

• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017). The court excluded the plaintiffs' experts' specific causation and "each and every exposure" opinions and granted summary judgment to Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific on the Rockmans' remaining strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims.

Michigan

• Faulkner Const. v. Silicosis Fund (1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission's ruling that the Silicosis, Dust Disease, and Logging Industry Compensation Fund was not liable, because employer Faulkner Construction and its insurer Wausau had not shown that peritoneal mesothelioma threatened its industry.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1988). The court granted the remaining defendants' (Celotex, Fibreboard, Keene, Pittsburg Corning) renewed motion for judgment, ruling that plaintiff Deborah Marshall could not proceed on a concert of action theory without showing any defendant supplied asbestos products to the naval station.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987). The district court stayed the case and certified to the Michigan Supreme Court the question of whether a plaintiff proceeding on a concert of action theory must show that at least one tortious defendant actually supplied asbestos to the decedent's workplace, without deciding the final outcome between Marshall's estate and the defendants.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987). The court granted the defendant manufacturers' summary judgment motions on the alternative liability, market share liability and enterprise liability theories, and held the motion on the concert of action theory in abeyance pending a hearing on causation.

Minnesota

• DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982). The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the asbestos defendants and remanded, holding the wrongful death limitation period can be tolled for fraudulent concealment, so the trustee for DeCosse's heirs may proceed.

Missouri

• Douglas v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (2020). The court granted Johnson & Johnson Consumer's motion and transferred the case from the Eastern District of Missouri to the Eastern District of Tennessee, over plaintiff Douglas's opposition.
• Douglas v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2019). The district court denied Johnson & Johnson's motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer under § 1406, and granted plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Imerys Talc America, which lifted the bankruptcy stay.
• Douglas v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2019). The court denied plaintiff Douglas's motion to remand because complete diversity existed, and granted PTI Union's motion to dismiss the claims against it with prejudice, so PTI Union won and Douglas lost on both motions.

Nebraska

• Osteen v. AC & S., Inc. (1981). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Court's award on rehearing, which made Peter Kiewit Sons' Company pay the whole death benefit to the widow, Connie Osteen, and it allowed her a $2,500 attorney fee on appeal.

New Jersey

• Marino v. Abex Corporation (2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Deborah Marino against Ford Motor Company, upholding the discovery sanctions; it found one hearsay ruling erroneous but harmless.
• Kaenzig v. Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc. (2015). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury's $1.6 million verdict and the denial of JNOV and a new trial, ruling against defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels and for plaintiffs Steven and Linda Kaenzig.
• Brust v. Acf Industries, LLC (2011). The court granted Brust's motion to remand to New Jersey state court because her complaint raised only state-law claims, and denied her request for attorney's fees and costs against the DRPA.
• Anderson v. AJ Friedman Supply Co. (2010). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Bonnie and John Anderson against Exxon Mobil, including the $7 million and $500,000 awards from the second damages trial, and rejected all of Exxon's arguments.

New York

• Gref v. American International Industries (2025). The court adopted the magistrate judge's report, granted plaintiff Gref's Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss his claims against American International Industries with prejudice, and denied AII's request for fees and costs.
• Gref v. American International Industries (2024). The court denied the defendants' joint motion to preclude plaintiff Gref's supplemental expert disclosures, finding the late disclosures unjustified but harmless, and said Dr. Moline's deposition could be reopened.
• Gref v. American International Industries (2024). The magistrate judge denied plaintiff Gref's motion for sanctions against defendant American International Industries, finding no bad faith in its pursuit of discovery about the identities of the 33 subjects in Dr. Moline's article.
• Pawlowski v. Avon Prods., Inc. (2024). The trial court denied the Estee Lauder defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, holding the plaintiffs' July 22, 2021 complaint timely.
• Tippin v. 3M Co., Alcat (1st Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and granted Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and LTL Management LLC's motion, dismissing plaintiff Tippin's complaint against them.
• Sason v. Dykes Lbr. Co. (2023). The court denied defendant Dykes Lumber Company's motion for summary judgment on causation, so plaintiff's claim against it continues.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (1st Dept., 2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Shulton's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Linda English et al. defeated the motion by Shulton's successor, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., holding that the plaintiff's causation proof was legally insufficient, so the defendant won and the plaintiff lost the jury verdict.
• Zicklin v. Bergdorf Goodman Inc. (2022). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment because conflicting expert opinions on general and specific causation raised fact issues; the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021). The court denied summary judgment to DAP (without prejudice to renewal on proper papers), Hennessy Industries and American Biltrite, so the plaintiffs' claims against all three go forward.
• Pistone v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2nd Dept., 2021). The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to American Biltrite, Inc. and Mannington Mills, Inc., and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (2020). The court denied defendant Shulton, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff Linda English's claims against Shulton go forward.
• English v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue and renew its July 2019 order dismissing the case against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction, and declined to consider plaintiffs' late supplementary letter and exhibits.
• Rothlein v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only as to talc supplied to Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive (unopposed), and denied it as to talc supplied for Old Spice, Mennen and Clubman powders, so plaintiffs' claims on those products continue.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (1st Dept., 2020). The First Department upheld the jury's liability verdict against the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (successor to Felt Products) but ordered a new trial on past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium unless plaintiff agreed to reduce those awards to $5.5 million and $650,000.
• Fletcher v. Clinique Laboratories (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied the Estee Lauder and Clinique defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiffs Hannah and Duncan Fletcher's New York action continued.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (1st Dept., 2020). The Appellate Division modified the judgment against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (WCD) to increase it to $3,300,000 because the trial court had miscalculated the settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the plaintiff's jury verdict; one judge dissented and would have entered judgment for WCD.
• Rothlein v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted American International Industries summary judgment only for decedent's alleged exposure to Clubman talc from 1982 through August 13, 1987, and denied the motion for the period from August 13, 1987 through 1995, including on punitive damages, so plaintiffs' remaining claims continue.
• Djokic v. Steel Grip (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Steel Grip's summary judgment motion on causation but granted it as to the spousal loss of consortium claim, dismissing Venetia Kontogouris's individual claim; plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Hernandez v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only for claims after 2004 and for talc sold to Johnson & Johnson for Baby Powder in 1976-1983, and denied it otherwise, so plaintiffs' claims over talc supplied to Avon for 1960-2004 and punitive damages go to trial.
• English v. Colgate Palmolive Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Colgate Palmolive's motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation and move the case to the FIFO docket, and confirmed the recommendation keeping plaintiffs English and Rasso in the In-Extremis trial cluster.
• Young v. Avon Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Avon Products' summary judgment motion only as to the conspiracy and loss of consortium claims, which were dismissed, and denied it on causation and punitive damages, so the plaintiffs' claims proceed to trial.
• Young v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The trial court denied defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Kim and J.C. Young's claims, including punitive damages, proceed to trial.
• Young v. Avon Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation and for a protective order, confirmed it, and allowed defendant Avon's expert to perform SEM testing on plaintiffs' expert's samples.
• Rothlein v. Imerys Talc America (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted dismissal of the claims against Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Cyprus Mineral Co. and of all claims against Imerys for the period before 1979, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims against Imerys, so the plaintiffs kept those claims.
• Rothlein v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The trial court granted Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. summary judgment only on the express warranty claim and the fourth through tenth causes of action (including loss of consortium), and denied it on negligence, strict liability, implied warranty and punitive damages, so those claims by the Rothleins go to trial.
• Cohen v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted summary judgment to Imerys Talc America, Inc. and Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, dismissing the Cohen plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against them because they were not successors to the talc suppliers.
• Garrido v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The trial court denied Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability, implied warranty and punitive damages claims, but granted it on the express warranty, fraud/conspiracy and several other causes of action, most of which plaintiffs did not oppose.
• Pistone v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2018). The trial court granted summary judgment to Mannington Mills and American Biltrite, dismissing Victoria Pistone's complaint and all cross-claims against them, because she did not show that chrysotile causes peritoneal mesothelioma or that she was exposed to enough of it from their products.
• Robaey v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2018). The court denied Fel-Pro's motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability and recklessness, but vacated the $50 million and $25 million awards and ordered a new trial on damages unless the Robaeys agreed to reduced awards.
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (2018). The trial court granted Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. summary judgment only on the express warranty claims and denied the rest of their motion, so plaintiffs Shulman and Krutkovich's negligence, strict liability, punitive damages and implied warranty claims remain for trial.
• Cunningham v. Aerco Intl. (2017). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate eleven asbestos cases, ordering four joint-trial groups of two or three cases each and separate trials for the Keith and Reno cases over the defendants' objections.
• Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion only to consolidate the Macaluso and Flood cases for trial, denied consolidation of the Story and Fleigner cases, which are to be tried separately, and ordered the trial sequence, over the defendants' opposition.
• Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation) (2017). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part: Altman and Hofstetter were to be tried together, Barber, Egri and Moynihan were to be tried together, and DeStefano, Fox, Baginski and Evans were to be tried separately.