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.

New York

• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted Ford Motor Company's (Ford USA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiffs Finerty.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Ford USA's motion for summary judgment, but reversed the denial of Ford UK's motion and dismissed the complaint against Ford UK for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Hockler v. William Powell Company (1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment, granted The William Powell Company's motion, and dismissed plaintiff Bryan Hockler's complaint.
• Cuzzolino v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate eight asbestos actions into three groups for joint trial, over the defendants' objections.
• Adler v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2012). The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial only in part, ordering the 22 in extremis cases tried in three disease-based groups (lung cancer, non-Navy mesothelioma, Navy mesothelioma) and severing Vega and Neuer for separate trials, over the defendants' objections to any joinder.
• Bischofsberger v. AO Smith Water Products (2012). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Verde and Ploeckelmann mesothelioma actions for a joint trial, and ordered the Verde case tried first and the Ploeckelmann case immediately after.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2012). The court granted defendant Colgate-Palmolive's motion for open commissions to depose out-of-state non-party witnesses Dr. Jian-Jun Wei and Norma Cuffe, over the plaintiffs' opposition, with depositions to be completed by March 30, 2012.
• Garner v. Dii Industries, LLC (2011). The district court granted the motions of DII Industries, the DII Industries Asbestos PI Trust, and the trustees to dismiss the estate's asbestos death claim as time-barred, denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend as futile, and directed judgment for the defendants.
• Barnes v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2008). The trial court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for joint trials. It ordered Bougadis, Boyle, Priolo, Schnabel and Palmieri to be tried together and kept the Montross, Perdicaro, Enea and Iqbal cases separate, over the defendants' general opposition.
• Fusaro v. Porter-Hayden Co. (1989). The trial court denied the motions by newly added defendants Asbestospray, APM, ACOA and Dana to dismiss the amended complaint as untimely, and denied the motions by H & A, Spraycraft, National Gypsum and Armstrong to strike the successor-liability allegations, so the plaintiff estate won and the amended complaint was deemed served.
• Matter of LA Gattuta v. Baldwin Ehret-Hill, Inc. (3rd Dept., 1971). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Board's award, leaving Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier on the risk at the Rochdale site, liable for the death claim, and rejecting the appellants' challenge.

North Carolina

• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2020). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ann Finch and her husband's estate against Covil Corporation, holding that the jury instruction on causation was proper and the $32.7 million compensatory award did not have to be reduced.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2019). The district court denied Covil Corporation's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and for remittitur, leaving in place the $32.7 million jury verdict for Ann Finch.
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Ford, Brenntag Specialties, Whittaker Clark & Daniels and Honeywell because Ratcliff's claims were time-barred, and recommended terminating the other pending motions as moot.
• Branson v. American International Industries (2016). The magistrate judge recommended denying Brenntag North America's and Brenntag Specialties' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to raising viable jurisdiction defenses at trial, and denied plaintiff Branson's jurisdictional discovery motion as moot.
• Johnson v. Covil Corporation (2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the Industrial Commission's death-benefit calculation for the widow, Edith Johnson, ruling that the 2006 maximum compensation rate applies and that she is owed 66 2/3% of average weekly wages ($538.41), and remanded for more specific findings and recalculation against Covil and its carriers.

Ohio

• State EX rel. Koepf v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (10th Appellate District, 2019). The Tenth District overruled the widow's objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and denied her request for a writ of mandamus, leaving the Industrial Commission's denial of loss-of-use compensation in place (Commission and Union Oil prevailed).
• Alexander v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2017). The court denied Honeywell International's motion for summary judgment on product identification, so the plaintiffs' claims over Bendix brakes go forward; it also denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the schedule for Honeywell's expert reports.
• Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (8th Appellate District, 2016). The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs against Honeywell on the jury verdict, reversed the directed verdict on punitive damages, and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages.
• Bartel v. John Crane, Inc. (2004). After a bench trial, the court entered a verdict for John Crane, finding the estate of Rolf Lindstrom failed to prove that John Crane gaskets and packing were a substantial factor or proximate cause of his peritoneal mesothelioma.

Oklahoma

• Fautheree v. McCaffrey (3rd Division, 2005). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the law firm and lawyers (McCaffrey, Thompson, McCaffrey & Gibson) against widow Patsy Fautheree's legal malpractice claim, because her workers' compensation claim would have been time-barred anyway.
• Fisher v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1989). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, treated as summary judgment, holding that Fisher's 1986 mesothelioma suit was barred by his earlier release, so the asbestos defendants won and the Fishers lost.

Other federal courts

• Lindstrom v. AC Product Liability Trust (2005). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ingersoll Rand, Coffin Turbo Pump, Garlock Sealing, Henry Vogt and Goulds Pumps, and affirmed the bench-trial verdict for John Crane, so the estate of Rolf Lindstrom lost against all six defendants.
• Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Faulk (2000). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's order, holding Norshipco liable as the last responsible employer for Theodore Faulk's full LHWCA disability award for peritoneal mesothelioma.

Pennsylvania

• Webber v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's orders opening and vacating the judgment entered for Ford, Abex and Honeywell and granting a mistrial, and denied the Webbers' motion to quash, so the defense judgment stood.
• Taylor v. Alcatel Lucent USA (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2011). The magistrate judge denied Lucent's motion to deem its requests for admissions admitted, sustained the plaintiffs' objections and found their answers sufficient, and granted the plaintiffs leave to supplement the record with supplemental expert declarations.
• Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2010). The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify.

Texas

• Broyles v. US Gypsum Co. (2001). The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for mandatory abstention, remanded the settlement-enforcement dispute to Texas state court, and denied the motions to sever Armstrong and Babcock & Wilcox, so plaintiffs prevailed over USG and Union Carbide.

Utah

• Riggs v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2015). The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Georgia-Pacific's and Union Carbide's motion to dismiss, holding the heirs' wrongful death suit was not barred by the decedent's earlier personal injury judgment, and remanded.
• Riggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2013). The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court: the Liability Reform Act applied rather than the Comparative Negligence Act, and Union Carbide's JNOV motion and Georgia-Pacific's directed verdict motion were properly denied, so the jury's verdict for the plaintiff stood.
• Tisco Intermountain v. Industrial Com'n of Utah (1987). The Utah Supreme Court vacated the Industrial Commission's award of death benefits to Jean Werner, finding no substantial credible evidence that her husband was last injuriously exposed to asbestos while working for Tisco, so Tisco and the State Insurance Fund prevailed.

Washington

• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022). The court rescinded its earlier order excluding plaintiff's experts Drs. Tarin and Cohen on specific causation and denied Honeywell's Daubert motion, so plaintiff Strong prevailed on this motion; no Daubert hearing was held.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant's fifth defense, because material facts about the decedent's exposure to other asbestos remained disputed; Honeywell prevailed on the motion.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2021). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and reinstated in full the $81.5 million jury verdict for the Coogan family and estate against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA, affirming denial of a new trial, exclusion of the defense expert, and denial of CR 60 relief.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2021). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a protective order barring Honeywell from obtaining Terry Strong's medical records and death certificate, and denied Honeywell's motion to exclude his product identification testimony and its request for a competency hearing.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2021). The court denied Honeywell's motion for a protective order to cap plaintiff Kristina Strong's deposition-testimony designations at 15 transcripts, leaving Honeywell to oppose the designations on their merits.
• Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2021). The court granted Honeywell partial summary judgment on the conspiracy and breach of warranty claims, dismissing them with prejudice because Plaintiff Strong did not respond; the failure-to-warn portion of the motion remained pending.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdict against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA but reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial on the estate's pain and suffering claim and on the consortium and loss of services claims.

West Virginia

• Newman v. Richardson (1991). The court granted the widows' mandamus petition as molded, ordering the Workers' Compensation Commissioner to reprocess their claims as occupational pneumoconiosis claims and to pay their attorney's fees, but it did not order immediate referral to the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board.

Wisconsin

• Chapp v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (1st District, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Colgate-Palmolive, dismissing Dale Chapp's claims, because his evidence that his wife used asbestos-contaminated Cashmere Bouquet talc showed only a possibility.
• Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2016). The court granted Weyerhaeuser summary judgment and struck plaintiffs' experts as to Masephol, Prust, Seehafer, Heckel and Treutel, denied them as to Boyer, Pecher and Sydow on public nuisance, and granted summary judgment to Weyerhaeuser on all private nuisance claims.