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.

Louisiana

• Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2017). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' Daubert motions: defense experts Dr. Graham and Dr. Taragin may give general causation testimony but not specific causation opinions that the defendants' products did not cause Mr. Bell's mesothelioma.
• Fletcher v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2017). The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after a bench trial that James Fletcher was Exxon's statutory employee, which favored Exxon over Fletcher; Chief Judge McKay dissented.
• Templet v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2017). The court granted Robert Templet's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish civil court, rejecting Avondale's federal officer removal because it showed no causal nexus to the negligence claims.
• Sutherland v. Alma Plantation, LLC (4th Circuit, 2016). The court of appeal reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment for Alma Plantation, L.L.C. on the issue of duty and remanded to the plaintiffs' benefit for further proceedings.
• Najolia v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. (2012). The court denied plaintiff Najolia's motion to remand, holding that General Electric and CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Bradley v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (2007). The court granted plaintiff Frank Bradley's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, holding that Northrop Grumman (as alleged successor to Avondale) and Peter Territo failed to justify federal officer removal; their motion for a 1292(b) statement was denied.
• Graves v. Riverwood International Corp. (2nd Circuit, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Olin Corporation's motions for JNOV and new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' verdict in place (general damages cut by the trial court from $4,500,000 to $3,000,000).
• Chaisson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (4th Circuit, 2006). The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the jury judgment for the Chaisson family against H.B. Zachry Company, including its 42.58% fault share and the wrongful death and survival awards, and rejected both Zachry's appeal and the family's cross-appeal for higher survival damages.
• Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. (4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff Christina Torrejon against Mobil Oil Company, including the $1.8 million general damage award, and refused to reduce Mobil's liability for the settling manufacturers' fault.
• Hughes v. Olin Corporation (2nd Circuit, 2003). The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment granting Olin Corporation's exception of prescription and remanded, so Letha Hughes's suit against Olin was revived.
• Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. (2002). The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment that the lower courts had granted to employers International Paper and Arizona Chemical, and remanded for further proceedings, because the employers had not shown Hogue's tort claim accrued only after 1975.
• Hebert v. Anco Insulation, Inc. (1st Circuit, 2002). The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against Hoyle, Gordon and Holder for lack of personal jurisdiction, but vacated the amended judgment against Dow on the merits and remanded for a determination of whether plaintiffs reserved their rights against Dow when they settled with the manufacturers.
• Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. (2nd Circuit, 2001). The appeals court amended the trial court's summary judgment so that it dismissed only Hogue's negligence claims against employers International Paper and Arizona Chemical (which won), and affirmed as amended; his intentional tort claims remain pending.
• Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (4th Circuit, 1996). The appeals court affirmed the bench-trial judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglass (OCF), including the $350,000 general damages award and the set-off ruling, and rejected the plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Ohio law.
• Held v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (4th Circuit, 1996). The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Held family's claims against Avondale Industries and remanded for further proceedings, so the plaintiffs prevailed on appeal.
• Johnson v. Ashland Oil, Inc. (1st Circuit, 1996). The court reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Johnson family's tort claims against Morton International and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986). Answering a question certified by the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a manufacturer may be held liable for an unreasonably dangerous per se or construction-defective product even if it could not have known of the danger, a result favoring the widow over Johns-Manville.
• Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985). The en banc Fifth Circuit certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court asking whether a strict products liability manufacturer may avoid liability by showing it did not and could not have known of its product's danger; it did not decide the appeal between Halphen and Johns-Manville.

Maine

• Bernier v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986). Answering questions certified by the federal district court, the Maine court held that state-of-the-art evidence is admissible in a failure-to-warn claim under section 221, that wrongful death damages are recoverable in a section 221 action, and that section 221 applies to pre-1973 inhalation only if the disease manifested after October 3, 1973; this was a partial win for each side, with two justices dissenting on the third question.
• Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1984). Answering a question certified by the federal district court, the Maine high court held that the comparative negligence statute applies to the strict liability claim against Raybestos-Manhattan, but only to compare the decedent's fault in voluntarily and unreasonably encountering a known danger.
• Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983). The First Circuit affirmed that admiralty law did not apply, upheld the denial of a new trial on the comparative negligence finding for Raybestos-Manhattan and Unarco, but vacated the dismissal of the plaintiff's Maine strict liability count and remanded for further proceedings.
• Austin v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981). The court granted Bath Iron Works' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Armstrong Cork's third-party complaint for contribution and indemnity because the LHWCA exclusive liability provision barred it.

Maryland

• Basil-Flippen v. General Electric Company (2024). The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for Westinghouse (Paramount Global) against the Basil estate and children on their strict liability design defect claim.
• Hailey v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Air and Liquid Systems, Crane, CBS, GE and IMO and to the cross-defendants on the cross-claims, because plaintiffs could not show any defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Shockley's mesothelioma; plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied as moot.
• Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The district court granted in part and denied in part Honeywell's Daubert motion: plaintiffs' experts Dr. Frank, Dr. Maddox and Dr. Finkelstein may testify, but may not rely on the 'each and every exposure' theory.
• Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (2018). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Patrick Rossello against Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., finding no error in the denial of summary judgment, the exclusion of Donald Hopkins as a trial witness, or the denial of JNOV and new trial motions.
• Vitale v. Burnham, LLC (2018). The Court of Special Appeals vacated the summary judgment for Burnham and Weil-McLain and the denial of reconsideration, and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the Vitale family on whether the boilers were asbestos-containing products.
• Dugger v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court on Crane Co.'s federal officer removal.
• May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the pump manufacturers Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps and IMO Industries, and against Philip May and his wife.
• Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the intermediate appellate court, reinstated the jury verdicts for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company, and reversed the trial court's judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, which won back the jury's verdict.
• Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013). The court held Crane Co. properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, severed Joyner's claims against Crane Co. and kept them in federal court, and remanded his claims against the other defendants to Baltimore City Circuit Court.
• Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012). The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgments for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiffs' expert's causation opinion.
• Crane v. Linkus (2010). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mr. Linkus (and his estate) against John Crane, Inc., rejecting Crane's challenges to causation, the size of the verdict, and the denial of credits for bankrupt entities' payments.
• O'connor v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2007). The district court denied the City of Baltimore's motion to dismiss, holding that O'Connor had standing to sue under the Medicare Secondary Payer statute, so he won at this stage.
• Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and the Circuit Court judgments for the Scribners against John Crane and Garlock, holding the non-economic damages cap did not apply to the survival action.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Pransky (2002). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals' judgment upholding the $9,188,000 jury verdict for Lisa Pransky and her husband against Georgia-Pacific, finding the causation evidence sufficient and the non-economic damages cap inapplicable.
• Owens Corning v. Bauman (1999). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the admission of Dr. Hammar's testimony, the refusal to amend the ad damnum clause, the refusal to submit punitive damages, and the denial of remittitur for excessiveness, but remanded so a new jury could decide when Hammond's mesothelioma arose for purposes of the noneconomic damages cap, which went against Owens Corning on the standard but partly for it on the jury question.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the jury's liability findings and compensatory awards for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois and Porter Hayden, but reversed the $1.5 million punitive damages award against Owens-Corning in the Scruggs case.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the punitive damages awards for the Knuckles estate against Eagle-Picher and Owens-Illinois and affirmed all other judgments for the plaintiffs against the manufacturer and installer defendants.
• Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984). The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Johns-Manville, holding the New York judgment dismissing the earlier wrongful death suit barred the widow's Maryland wrongful death action.

Massachusetts

• Barraford v. T & N Limited (2014). The court granted T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for judgment on the pleadings (treated as summary judgment) because Nora Barraford's claims were time-barred and no tolling applied.
• Barraford v. T&N Limited (2013). The court denied T&N Limited and TAF International's motion for summary judgment against Nora Barraford, and granted the motion to strike in part (the medical journal articles) and denied it in part (the Heinen deposition and other exhibits).

Michigan

• Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985). The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants (Johns-Manville Sales Corp. and Fibreboard Corp.) in all four wrongful death actions, holding them time-barred and leaving the plaintiffs without recovery.

Minnesota

• Filipek v. the Boeing Company (2017). The court granted summary judgment to Boeing, Navistar, Borg-Warner Morse Tec, CBS, McNeil, Northern States Power and United Technologies because the Filipeks' claims were time-barred, denied the Filipeks' motion to withdraw an admission, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Missouri

• Hayden v. Cut-Zaven, Ltd. (Eastern District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals reversed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits, held that the hairdresser's job was the prevailing factor causing his mesothelioma, set his date of injury as June 26, 2014, and remanded for the remaining issues, with the claimant (his widow) prevailing over the employers Cut-Zaven and Papillion.
• Zurich American v. Insurance Co. of North America (2019). The court granted Insurance Company of North America's summary judgment motion, denied Zurich American's, and dismissed Zurich's contribution, subrogation and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice.
• Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (Western District, 2012). The court reversed the judgment against Simpson Timber for lack of proof its tile contained asbestos, affirmed the judgment against Bondex and the damages amount, and remanded to reallocate Simpson Timber's 35% of fault between Bondex and Conwed.
• Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (1991). The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the $2,000,000 jury verdict for the Hagen family, directing judgment for Owens-Illinois and remanding for a new trial against Fibreboard because the plaintiffs' proof of causation was insufficient.

Montana

• Morey v. BNSF Railway Company (2023). The district court remanded Karen Morey's asbestos suit against BNSF Railway to the Montana Asbestos Claims Court after the federal-officer defendant (RTX) was dismissed, so Morey obtained the state forum and BNSF's side lost the federal forum.

Nebraska

• Olivotto v. DeMarco Bros. Co. (2007). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court review panel's decision for Mrs. Olivotto on causation and medical expenses, reduced the medical award by $4,800 for double recovery, upheld the denial of weekly indemnity benefits, and dismissed her cross-appeal.