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.

South Carolina

• Jolly v. General Elec. Co. (2021). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court's denial of Fisher Controls and Crosby Valve's directed verdict, JNOV and motion to quash, its grant of new trial nisi additur to the Jollys, and its partial grant of setoff, so the Jollys kept their verdict.

Tennessee

• Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed in part the Court of Appeals, reinstated the trial court's summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers on failure-to-warn claims about asbestos products made and sold by others, and remanded, so the Coffmans lost on this issue.
• Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (2014). The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Illinois Central Railroad, which had been based on a release from an earlier asbestosis settlement, and remanded for further proceedings, so the widow's FELA claim continues.
• Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. (2011). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding North Brothers could be sued in strict liability and that the jury instruction was reversible error, and reversed the trial court's judgment for North Brothers and remanded for a new trial in favor of widow Evelyn Nye.
• Woody v. AW Chesterton Company (2008). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants as to claims from pre-release asbestos exposure, which the 1980 release barred, but left Rebecca Woody's claims from post-release exposure standing.

Texas

• Andrews v. John Crane, Inc. (14th District, 2020). The appeals court affirmed that maritime law applied and that JCI did not waive it, but reversed the take-nothing judgment for John Crane, Inc. because the trial court wrongly barred recovery of Pepper's pre-death pain and suffering, and remanded for further proceedings.
• In re Wilhite (2009). The court of appeals denied the Wilhites' petition for mandamus, so the judge stayed on the case and Alcoa prevailed over the Wilhites, with three justices dissenting.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (5th District, 2007). The appeals court reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed Mrs. Behringer no legal duty.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (5th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed no legal duty.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (14th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon owed her no duty before 1972 because take-home asbestos risk was not foreseeable to it until then.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Stephens (2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Fred and Betty Stephens and rendered judgment for Georgia-Pacific, because the expert causation testimony was legally insufficient.
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Stephens (1st District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Fred and Betty Stephens against Georgia-Pacific and rendered judgment for Georgia-Pacific, because the expert causation testimony was legally insufficient.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (14th District, 2006). The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon Mobil owed her no duty during the relevant period.
• Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for Rapid-American on limitations grounds and remanded to the trial court, so Pustejovsky's mesothelioma suit may proceed.
• Celotex Corp. v. Tate (13th District, 1990). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Tate's heirs against Celotex (as successor to Philip Carey) and George Rowley, Inc., including actual and punitive damages, rejecting all eleven of Celotex's points of error.

Utah

• Riegler v. Carlisle Companies, Incorporated (2023). The court granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims after excluding Dr. Staggs's specific causation opinion, and granted in part and denied in part the motions to exclude: Ewing's opinion and Staggs's general causation opinion were admitted.
• Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion, joined by York, Honeywell, Goulds Pumps, Flowserve and Sepco, and excluded the plaintiff's experts' "every exposure" specific causation testimony, a ruling for the defendants over Arva Anderson.

Virginia

• Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2018). On a question certified by a federal district court, the Supreme Court of Virginia answered that an employer owes a duty of care to an employee's family member allegedly exposed to asbestos from the employee's work clothes, favoring the estate of Wanda Quisenberry over Huntington Ingalls (the Shipyard); three justices dissented.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient-causes standard.
• Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2013). Answering a question certified by the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the executrix's mesothelioma wrongful death claim accrued at the earlier asbestosis diagnosis, not the mesothelioma diagnosis, which favored the defendants (two justices dissented).
• Anderson v. Crown Cork & Seal (2000). The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand and sent the case back to Portsmouth Circuit Court, rejecting the defendants' federal enclave removal theory.
• Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court's summary judgments for Johns-Manville and the other defendants, holding the mesothelioma suit was not time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.

Washington

• Perkins v. United States (2024). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the United States and against the plaintiff, finding she did not prove that actionable Navy conduct caused Geraldine Perkins's mesothelioma.
• Perkins v. United States (2024). The court denied the estate's motion to pre-admit exhibits and denied both sides' motions in limine, mostly as premature and without prejudice to renewal at the bench trial, and ruled generally on deposition designations; it left specific objections to a later order.
• Perkins v. United States (2024). The district court denied without prejudice the United States' motion to dismiss under the FTCA discretionary function exception and denied its motion for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiff's negligence claim for bench trial.
• Perkins v. United States (2024). The court denied the United States' motion to exclude plaintiff's three experts and denied without prejudice its motion to strike supplemental expert disclosures, so plaintiff won both motions for now.
• Perkins v. United States (2024). The court granted the United States' motion to amend the protective order so that unreleased Department of Defense technical information produced in discovery is treated as confidential, over the plaintiff's opposition.
• Perkins v. United States (2023). The court granted in part and denied in part the United States' partial motion to dismiss: claims before March 1970, and claims over respirators, laundry service, shower facilities and failure to warn, were dismissed, while the claim over failure to provide protective clothing survived.
• Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking Marjorie Carroll's complaint against Nissan as a discovery sanction and remanded, and affirmed the $1,000 fee sanction against attorney Owens, rejecting Nissan's cross-appeal.
• Kraemer v. Lone Star Industries (2021). The court granted the Kraemers' motion to remand to King County Superior Court because Lone Star failed to show a colorable military contractor defense for federal officer removal, and awarded the Kraemers $1,000 in fees and costs.
• Welch v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021). The district court granted the Welches' motion to remand to King County Superior Court because Velan Valve Corp.'s removal came after the plaintiffs had moved to dismiss Velan, and awarded the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs against Velan.
• Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The court denied Todd Shipyard's (Puget Sound Commerce Center's) Daubert motion, so plaintiffs' experts Moore, Paskal, Zhang and Ay may testify.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court denied Armstrong International's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's untimely request to reconsider the exclusion of Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's report, and denied Armstrong's motion to exclude the Sanders Declaration (denied as moot for the other two exhibits).
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking Mr. Varney's mesothelioma to its products.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The district court granted Parker-Hannifin's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Donald and Maria Varney and dismissed Parker-Hannifin from the case, because plaintiffs had no admissible evidence linking its products to Mr. Varney's mesothelioma.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' belated request for reconsideration, denied Warren's motion to strike as moot, and dismissed Warren from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted Weir Valves' motion for summary judgment, denied the Varneys' request for reconsideration of the order excluding Mr. Varney's affidavit and Dr. Maddox's opinion, and dismissed Weir Valves from the case.
• Varney v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The court granted defendant John Crane Inc.'s summary judgment motion and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of causation; its motion to strike was denied as moot.
• Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON (2018). The court entered a joint proposed pretrial order setting the claims, defenses, admitted facts, witnesses and a March 26, 2018 jury trial against Scapa Dryer Fabrics; it decided no merits question, so neither side prevailed.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The district court denied Scapa Dryer Fabrics' motion for summary judgment, so Geraldine Barabin's claim over her husband's mesothelioma goes to trial.
• Barabin v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. (2018). The court granted in part and denied in part Scapa's two motions to exclude expert testimony: it barred DePasquale's numerical exposure range and the causation testimony of Drs. Smith and Cohen, but allowed the rest of Barabin's exposure and causation experts (Brodkin, Tarin with limits, Compton).
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018). The court granted Ford's motion to exclude Charles Cushing's testimony on Mr. Jack's automotive asbestos exposure, and denied the defendants' other motions to exclude the plaintiffs' experts (Fitzgerald, Gordon, Brodkin, Brody, Castleman, Longo), so the plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018). The court granted Union Pacific's summary judgment motion and granted in part and denied in part the motions of Ford and Borg-Warner, leaving Plaintiffs' exposure claims for removal of Borg-Warner clutches and for several Ford brake exposures for trial. It also granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on some defense claims, such as superseding cause, the sophisticated purchaser defense and, against Borg-Warner, failure to mitigate, and denied it on others.
• Noll v. American Biltrite Inc. (2017). The Washington Supreme Court held that, on the allegations before it, the trial court properly dismissed Noll's claims against Special Electric without prejudice for lack of specific personal jurisdiction. It rejected the Court of Appeals' reasoning and remanded to the trial court, which may make its own jurisdictional finding on any new allegations.
• Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's CR 12(b)(2) dismissal, holding Washington may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Special Electric, so Noll's estate won on this issue.
• Sprague v. Pfizer, Inc. (2015). The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court, granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment because there was no evidence Pfizer was an apparent manufacturer under Restatement § 400, and dismissed the case.
• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014). The court granted PacifiCorp's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the McManns' claims against PacifiCorp, finding no genuine issue of fact that Mr. McMann was exposed to asbestos at the Centralia Steam Plant.
• Nelson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014). The court granted Crane's motion as to Great Lakes exposure and Carrier's motion as to the feed-pump turbines, but denied both motions as to Crane valves and Carrier air conditioning units aboard the Kitty Hawk, so those claims go forward for the Nelsons.
• Bouchard v. CBS Corporation (2012). The court granted Saint Gobain Containers' motion for summary judgment, holding SGC did not assume liability for Lola Bouchard's asbestos exposure under the asset purchase agreement, so plaintiffs lost against SGC.
• Abbay v. Aurora Pump Company (1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing George and Lynne Abbay's asbestos suit against the manufacturer and supplier respondents, and remanded, holding the disclaimer ambiguous and clarified in Abbay's favor.