Pleural Mesothelioma: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve pleural mesothelioma: 362 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Pleural Mesothelioma.

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 court found for the plaintiffs (the estate of Barbara Bobo) against the Tennessee Valley Authority, awarding $3,000,000 for pain and suffering and $537,131.82 in medical expenses, with TVA entitled to a $136,176.37 offset for asbestos trust settlements.
• 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.
• Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2014). The court denied the Tennessee Valley Authority's motion to exclude Dr. Eugene Mark's specific causation opinion, so the plaintiffs prevailed on that point, and held the motion directed at Dr. Wulsin moot because plaintiffs withdrew her specific causation testimony.
• Bobo v. Agco Corp. (2013). The court granted in part and denied in part the Tennessee Valley Authority's motion for summary judgment on discretionary-function grounds, dismissing Mrs. Bobo's failure-to-warn and training claims but letting her claims over exposure limits, monitoring, protective equipment and lockers, and medical examinations proceed.
• Bobo v. Agco Corporation (2013). The court granted TVA's discretionary-function summary judgment motion in part, dismissing Mrs. Bobo's failure-to-warn and asbestos-training claims, and denied it as to her claims about exposure limits, monitoring, protective equipment and lockers, and medical examinations.

Arkansas

• Alcoa v. Vann (2nd Division, 1985). The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Commission's award of benefits to Raymond Vann's estate, rejecting self-insured employer Alcoa's challenge to the finding that his mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure at Alcoa.

California

• Elorreaga v. Viacomcbs Inc. (2024). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's partial summary judgment for the Elorreaga plaintiffs and its denial of summary judgment to ViacomCBS, Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps, and remanded for the district court to consider the Yearsley government contractor defense.
• Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024). The court granted Metalclad partial summary judgment, granted some defendants summary judgment on maritime non-pecuniary damages and on one product (Rockwell's Allen-Bradley equipment), denied most other defense summary judgment motions, denied the defense motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts, and partly excluded defense naval expert Herfel.
• Smargisso v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024). The court denied Warren Pumps' evidentiary motions and the Warren and IMO causation motions, and granted defendants summary judgment on punitive damages, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings and the design defect claims. It also granted plaintiffs summary judgment on the sophisticated user, sophisticated intermediary and superseding cause defenses, and denied both sides summary judgment on the government contractor defense to the failure to warn claims.
• Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, the order on settlement offsets and the amended judgment for plaintiffs against Pneumo Abex and remanded for a new trial, holding that the directed verdict on the sophisticated user defense was error.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023). The federal district court denied summary judgment motions by General Electric, ViacomCBS, Air & Liquid Systems and Warren Pumps, and granted the Elorreaga family's motion for partial summary judgment that the government contractor defense does not apply.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023). The federal district court denied the defendants' motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts Staggs, Spear, Smith and Horn, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial.
• Haeck v. 3M Company (2023). The court granted Gary and Elizabeth Haeck's motion to remand the case to state court because 3M's removal was barred by the forum defendant rule, and awarded Plaintiffs $5,000 in fees and costs against 3M.
• Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2022). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff (the personal representative of Patricia Schmitz) against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and Colgate-Palmolive, rejecting all of the defendants' claims of error.
• Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2022). The court granted General Electric and ViacomCBS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium damages under general maritime law, but denied it as to the California negligence and strict liability claims.
• Dietrich v. Boeing Company (2021). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order remanding the case to state court, finding Boeing's federal officer removal timely, vacated the $3,500 fee award to plaintiff Dietrich, and remanded.
• BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court for County OF Los Angeles (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal granted BNSF Railway's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its denial of BNSF's motion to quash and to grant the motion, because California lacked general personal jurisdiction over BNSF; the Kralovetz family lost.
• Greenberg v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal granted the Greenbergs' writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its summary judgment for Hennessy Industries and enter an order denying summary judgment and summary adjudication.
• Hernandezcueva v. EF Brady Company, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal reversed the nonsuit on the strict products liability claim against E. F. Brady, so the Hernandezcuevas won on that point and the matter was remanded. It affirmed the denial of a new trial and the rest of the judgment for E. F. Brady.
• Hellam v. Crane Co. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Hellam against Crane Co., affirmed the denial of Crane's JNOV and motion to vacate, and affirmed the costs award except for remanding whether costs for pretrial transcripts should be taxed.
• Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (3rd Appellate District, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Lovelace, upholding the denial of Pneumo Abex's motions for new trial and JNOV and the jury's 13 percent fault allocation to Abex.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2014). The court denied John Crane Inc.'s motion for summary judgment against Viola Willis on real-party-in-interest, causation and punitive damages grounds, leaving the claims for trial, and rejected its public policy argument as premature.
• Catiller v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiffs' writ petition, directing the trial court to vacate summary judgment for Schneider Electric USA and to give plaintiffs time to oppose using the deposition of SEI's most knowledgeable person.
• Hernandez v. Amcord, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of nonsuit for Amcord, Inc. and also reversed the trial court's exclusion of Amcord's lobbying evidence, ruling for plaintiff Natalia Hernandez on both points and sending the case back to the trial court.
• Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2013). The Court of Appeal dismissed John Crane's appeal of the expert-fee award, modified the judgment to set the Pfeifers' net economic damages at $1,374,622.29, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for the Pfeifers, including the $14.5 million punitive award.
• Brewer v. Crane Co. (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Brewers against Crane Co. and remanded for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Crane's favor, applying O'Neil v. Crane Co.
• Rollin v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Foster Wheeler, Yarway and Elliott entered after the trial court granted JNOV, affirmed the alternative order granting a new trial on different grounds, and directed a new trial.
• Fontes v. Interstate Brands Corporation (2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Interstate Brands Corporation and the denial of the Fonteses' new trial motion, with costs on appeal awarded to IBC.
• Webster v. Exxonmobil Oil Corp. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's nonsuit for ExxonMobil Oil Corp. because plaintiff's evidence did not support a finding that he was exposed to asbestos at the Torrance refinery.
• Hall v. Warren Pumps LLC (2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment for the pump and valve makers (Warren Pumps, Yarway, IMO Industries and Crane Co.) and against Bertie Hall, finding they owed no duty for asbestos products made and supplied by others.
• Haver v. BNSF Railway Company (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for BNSF Railway against Lynne Haver (substituted by her son Josh Haver), holding she could not raise an unpleaded premises-liability theory in her opposition papers.
• Russell v. Ford Motor Company (2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability and damages findings against Ford Motor Company, but vacated the judgment and remanded so Ford's counsel could review the settlement agreements before a new judgment was entered on the settlement offset.
• Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of Campbell's action for failure to prosecute, finding it was less than two years old, but dismissed the appeal of the earlier stay order as untimely and upheld the denials of relief from the stay.
• Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted plaintiff Wayne Handley's petition for writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to set a trial date within 15 days of finality, rejecting the July 21, 2009 date sought by the defendants (Buffalo Pumps and others).
• Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal granted Handley's writ petition and directed the trial court to vacate its summary adjudication order against Handley, reconsider the motion including his "sophisticated user" argument, and rule on its merits; Leslie Controls lost the ruling.
• Mahoney v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of $6,289,544 for plaintiffs Joan and Daniel Mahoney against Georgia-Pacific, rejecting its challenges to causation, attorney misconduct and the scope of the new trial.
• Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's finding that Kaiser Gypsum's joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Silvestro's mesothelioma, reversed the jury's 30 percent fault allocation to Kaiser Gypsum, and remanded the case, so the plaintiffs won on liability and Kaiser Gypsum won on allocation.
• Walmach v. Wheeler (2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the $2.66 million judgment for Walmach's widow and daughters against Foster Wheeler, rejecting its challenges to the denial of JNOV and a new trial.
• Rosen v. Regents of University of California (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Regents of the University of California and against Dr. Rosen's wife and children, upholding the nonsuit on negligence, the jury instructions and verdict form, and the evidence rulings.
• Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, which had affirmed the trial court's refusal to apply Proposition 51 to plaintiff Buttram's noneconomic damages, holding the accrual test wrong and remanding; this favors defendant Owens-Corning.
• Kellogg v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal reversed the damages award to Harry Kellogg against Asbestos Corporation Limited and the section 998 costs, remanded for a limited new trial on his lifetime economic damages and costs, and affirmed the rest, including Ida May Kellogg's award.
• Scott Co. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1983). The Court of Appeal affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's award, which imposed liability only on Scott Company (and its insurer Liberty Mutual) and dismissed the later employers Atlas Heating and Western Air.

Delaware

• Reed v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Nosroc, County Insulation, Asbestos Corporation Limited, Charles Wagner Co. and Bayer CropScience, against the Reed plaintiffs.

District of Columbia

• Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2013). The district court struck the plaintiff's late expert declaration and granted Honeywell's motion to reconsider, entering summary judgment for Honeywell because the plaintiff could not show causation under Virginia law as stated in Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer.

Florida

• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2018). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against the Waites.
• Font v. Union Carbide Corp. (3rd District, 2016). On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Third District reversed the judgment for Union Carbide after a jury verdict and remanded Count II (strict liability) for a new trial, because the trial court refused Font's requested consumer expectations instruction.
• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2016). The court denied Ford's motion for summary judgment and its motion to exclude Plaintiffs' causation experts and historian, denied Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Ford's experts (while barring untimely expert analysis), and denied Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Taylor v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2015). The court granted Roy and Suzanne Taylor's emergency motion to remand the case to Florida state court because the non-diverse defendants had settled but not been formally dismissed, and denied their request for attorneys' fees.
• Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (1st District, 1987). The appeals court reversed the deputy commissioner's finding that the 1973 exposure at Harry Harmon Insulation was not the last injurious exposure, but affirmed that the widow's death benefits claim was barred by the 350-week limit, remanding for further proceedings.