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.

New York

• Mantovi v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted American Biltrite, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Mantovi plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it.
• Olson v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Donna and Robert Olson's claims against them continue.
• Knudsen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate for trial and ordered eight of the eighteen in extremis cases tried jointly in four pairs over the defendants' opposition, with the remaining cases to be tried individually.
• Margolis v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2019). The court denied American Biltrite, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Margolis plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, because fact issues remained on general and specific causation.
• Matter of Marzigliano v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2019). The trial court denied Mannington Mills, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation.
• Nauheimer v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Nauheimer and Roqueta asbestos cases for a joint trial over the defendants' opposition, and placed them on the deceased extremis trial list.
• Prokocimer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted R.J. Reynolds and Hollingsworth & Vose partial summary judgment dismissing only the spouse's loss of consortium claim, and denied dismissal of the failure to warn and punitive damages claims, so plaintiff Lois Prokocimer won on those.
• Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court upheld the jury's liability verdict against A.O. Smith (with Peerless and Burnham) but found the pain-and-suffering and loss-of-parental-guidance awards excessive, ordering a new trial on damages unless plaintiff agreed to reduced amounts.
• Lindsey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's forum non conveniens motion and dismissed the action without prejudice, on condition that Colgate stipulate to accept service in Indiana, Ohio or Illinois and waive limitations and jurisdictional defenses; if it does not, the motion is denied.
• Zoas v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (2018). The court denied Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, so plaintiffs Ann and Christos Zoas' claims against them go forward.
• 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.
• Montanez v. Beck/Arnley Worldparts (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Beck/Arnley Worldparts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiffs failed to show continuity of ownership needed for successor liability.
• O'connor v. Aerco International, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division reversed the three orders that had granted summary judgment to Fisher Scientific, Thomas Scientific and VWR International, and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2016). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the Feinbergs' claims over Arlene Feinberg's mesothelioma go forward.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed both Appellate Division orders, leaving in place the plaintiffs' jury verdicts against Crane Co. in the Dummitt and Suttner mesothelioma cases.
• Ricci v. Crane Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2015). The court denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Mark Ricci's complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it.
• 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.
• Mineweaser v. One Beacon America Insurance Company (2015). The court denied the excess insurers' motion to file their settlement agreements with Hedman under seal and subject to a protective order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of those agreements.
• North v. Adam Opel AG. (Albany, 2015). The court granted German automaker Adam Opel AG's motion to dismiss the complaint of Larry and Claudia North for lack of personal jurisdiction, denying the plaintiffs' request for further jurisdictional discovery.
• Kestenbaum v. Durez Corp. (2014). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiff's claims against it in place.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed both jury-verdict judgments for the plaintiffs (Konstantin against Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Dummitt against Crane Co.) and dismissed the appeal from the order denying Crane's post-trial motion as subsumed in the judgment appeal; one justice, joined by another, dissented in part as to Dummitt.
• Noble v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2014). The trial court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Harriet Noble's claims against Lennox continue.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating 15 asbestos cases into three joint trial groups and ordering the Liberman and Vara cases tried separately, over the defendants' objections.
• Macek v. CBS Corporation (2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiffs' claims against it go forward.
• Tobin v. Aerco Intl. (2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiff showed no exposure to asbestos from a Crane product; the action continues against the other defendants.
• 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.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. Ronald Dummitt v. AW Chesterton (2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability for plaintiff Ronald Dummitt. It vacated the $16 million past and $16 million future pain-and-suffering awards unless he accepts a reduction to $5.5 million and $2.5 million.
• Tycz v. Asbeka Industries OF New York, Inc. (2012). The district court granted James Tycz's motion to remand the case to New York state court, finding Blodgett had not shown the non-diverse New York defendants were fraudulently joined, and denied his request for costs.
• Tedrick v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig.) (2011). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's in limine motion to apply Oregon's $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages, ruling against the estate plaintiffs who wanted New York law with no cap.
• Miranda v. Abex Corp. (2010). The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Ernesto and Diana Miranda because factual issues remained about whether Mr. Miranda was exposed to asbestos in Goodyear-branded brakes.
• Plumb v. AC and S., Inc. (3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the order setting aside the jury's apportionment of 98% of fault to General Electric, a ruling that left Sears, Roebuck, the appellant, responsible for the verdict; two justices concurred and one dissented.
• Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc. (1999). The Second Circuit reversed the district court's post-verdict dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding Atlas Turner forfeited the defense, and remanded for consideration of Atlas's other challenges to judgment on the plaintiff's verdict.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (In Re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos) (1998). The court granted Owens Corning's motion for a new trial unless Consorti accepts a reduced pain and suffering award of $5 million (a $7 million remittitur), and denied Owens Corning's request to cut the award to $3.5 million.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning (1995). The New York Court of Appeals answered the Second Circuit's certified question in the negative, so Frances Consorti had no loss of consortium claim against Owens-Corning, which prevailed on that question.
• Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation) (1994). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' post-trial motions after the jury awarded over $47 million to the Tabolt, Consorti, Luchnick and Pulizzi plaintiffs: it ordered a new trial on fault allocation in Tabolt and on Mrs. Consorti's future non-economic consortium damages, cut several consortium awards, and on reargument reduced Pulizzi's funeral-expense award to $2,925, but otherwise left the verdicts in place.
• Barnett v. City of Yonkers (1990). The court granted summary judgment to the City of Yonkers and architect Eli Rabineau, denied the Board of Education's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the Board's cross-claim against U.S. Gypsum for lack of service while denying Gypsum's summary judgment and Rule 11 motions.
• Smith v. Bell Aerospace (3rd Dept., 1987). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision discharging the Special Funds Conservation Committee from liability on the death claim, and sent the matter back to the Board, with costs against the Special Fund.

North Carolina

• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions to exclude expert testimony before trial: plaintiff's experts may testify that each defendant's products contributed to and caused Mr. Walls' mesothelioma, but not that any exposure was a legal 'substantial factor'.
• Settlemyer v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2021). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton, BWDAC, ZF Active Safety US, PACCAR and Daimler Trucks North America and dismissed the Settlemyers' claims against them with prejudice.
• Settlemyer v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2021). The court granted the defendants' motions to exclude the specific-causation opinions of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Holstein and Dr. Staggs, and largely denied the plaintiffs' motion to exclude the defendants' experts.
• 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.
• Young v. 3M Company (2016). The magistrate judge granted Plaintiffs' motion for limited jurisdictional discovery on specific personal jurisdiction over Master Industries, Inc. and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC, over their objections.
• Kingston v. Lyon Construction, Inc. (2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, which denied the employer and its insurer's motion to introduce newly discovered evidence and reduced their workers' compensation lien on the worker's third-party asbestos settlements to zero; the worker won.

Ohio

• Brucker v. CBS Corporation (2019). The district court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment on the maritime strict liability and negligence claims because plaintiff Christine Brucker could not show that Harold Brucker was exposed to Crane's asbestos-containing products.
• Watkins v. Affinia Group (8th Appellate District, 2016). The court of appeals reversed the jury verdict for Barbara Watkins (individually and as executor of Glenn Watkins's estate) against Honeywell, because the trial court admitted the plaintiff's causation experts without holding a Daubert hearing.
• Burkhart v. HJ Heinz Co. (2014). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' ruling that Donald Burkhart's earlier deposition was admissible against H.J. Heinz, and remanded for the trial court to decide whether the remaining evidence creates a genuine issue of fact; Heinz won on the evidence issue and Mrs. Burkhart lost it.
• State EX rel. General Motors Company v. Webster (10th Appellate District, 2014). The court overruled General Motors' objections, adopted the magistrate's decision, and denied GM's request for a writ of mandamus, leaving the Industrial Commission's death benefit award to the widow, Dionicia Webster, at the statewide maximum of $775 per week.
• Cantrell v. Adience, Inc. (8th Appellate District, 2010). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Borg-Warner, ruling that Alice and Bernard Cantrell had no evidence she was exposed to a Borg-Warner asbestos product during her employment.
• Beany v. Ohio State Univ. (2009). After a bench trial on liability, the Ohio Court of Claims entered judgment for defendant Ohio State University, finding plaintiff Mark Beany failed to prove an employer intentional tort, and his family's derivative loss of consortium claim failed with it.