Mesothelioma: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve mesothelioma: 2,859 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Mesothelioma.

Delaware

• Gordon v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted summary judgment to Dana (Victor gaskets) and UOP, and denied summary judgment to Elliott, Armstrong and Born, so the plaintiffs' claims against those three go forward.
• Clineff v. BP Amoco Chemical Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted summary judgment to BP Amoco Chemical Company, BP Corporation North America Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. because the plaintiffs' claims were filed after the two-year limitations period expired.
• Davis v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Wesley Davis, finding he had not shown Crane-supplied asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Foucha v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment against Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they could not show without speculation that Foucha was exposed to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific joint compound.
• Bowser v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Parker-Hannifin's summary judgment motion in part (strict liability count and helicopter brake exposures before 1967) and denied it as to the airplane brake claims, so Plaintiff Jenny Bowser's remaining claims proceed.
• Foucha v. CertainTeed Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted CertainTeed Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they lacked evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing CertainTeed product.
• Henderson v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' post-trial motion for costs against Dana and Zoom, awarding $14,597.12 in costs plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
• Newman v. Avocet Enterprises (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court denied Avocet Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on the Newmans' remaining claims, because Newman's testimony about using Ventbestos raised a factual dispute on causation, and found the motion moot as to the withdrawn conspiracy claim.
• James v. Albany Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Albany International's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Charlene James because there was no non-speculative evidence that Robert James was exposed to an asbestos-containing Albany product.
• Ashworth v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion on the survival action as time-barred, but denied it on the wrongful death claim, which was timely and had factual disputes on causation and product identification.
• Cruz v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not show under Texas law that exposure to its Ready Mix joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Cruz's mesothelioma.
• Olson v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants Crane Co. and CBS Corp. (Westinghouse) against plaintiffs, holding Idaho law would not make them liable for other manufacturers' asbestos-containing parts.
• Freeman v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs raised a genuine dispute of fact about whether Wilburn Freeman was exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing joint compound.
• Farrall v. Atlas Turner (In re Asbestos Litigation Limited TO Farrall) (2011). The court granted Atlas Turner, Inc.'s and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.'s motions to dismiss, holding the 1982 release barred James Farrall's new mesothelioma claims; the plaintiffs lost.
• Turchen v. County Insulation Co. (In re Litigation) (2011). The court imposed a $25,000 Rule 11 sanction on plaintiffs' counsel Thomas Crumplar for misstating authority in opposing County Insulation's summary judgment motion, and referred the matter, including the McCardle-Desco briefing, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
• General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the $2 million jury verdict for Grenier against Ford, upholding the trial court's admission of Grenier's expert causation testimony after remand and rejecting Ford's other claims of error.
• General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009). The Delaware Supreme Court remanded to the motion judge to reconsider the admissibility of the plaintiffs' general causation experts (Drs. Dodson and Lemen) because his factual findings misstated the record, leaving GM and Ford's challenge to the $2 million verdict for Grenier undecided for now.
• Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2009). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court concluded that, despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible.
• In re Asbestos Litigation v. Adel Wiggins Group (2009). The district court granted the Seitz plaintiffs' motions to remand to Delaware Superior Court, rejecting Bell Helicopter's and Northrop Grumman's federal officer removal because they showed no colorable federal defense.
• In re Grossman's, Inc. (2009). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that the Van Bruntss' tort claims arose after the plan's Effective Date and were not discharged, but reversed as to the breach of warranty claims, which it held were discharged in favor of JELD-WEN; sanctions were denied.
• Kirks v. General Electric Company (2009). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand both cases to Delaware state court, holding that General Electric had established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• In re Grossman's Inc. (2008). The bankruptcy court ruled for Mary and Gordan Van Brunt and against JELD-WEN, holding that the Van Brunts' asbestos claims arose after the Grossman's plan's effective date and were not discharged or barred by the Confirmation Order.
• Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co. (2006). The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the California Action and denied Imperial Tobacco Canada's petition to transfer it to Delaware, so Flintkote, the committees and the Hopkins family won and ITCAN lost.
• Hudson v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation Hudson Trial Group) (2006). The court granted Delmarva Power & Light summary judgment on Hudson's claim for exposure at its Edgemoor plant and denied it for the Delaware City plant because the record on control was undeveloped.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2006). The bankruptcy court granted W.R. Grace's summary judgment motion in part, finding no evidence that Zonolite Attic Insulation poses an unreasonable risk of harm, and denied the ZAI Claimants' motion except for an order that the undisputed facts of asbestos contamination and fiber release on disturbance were established.
• Roca v. EI du Pont de Nemours and Co. (2004). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DuPont, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Rhone-Poulenc, holding that Roca waived his Section 343 claim by not raising it in his opening brief.

District of Columbia

• Jackson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2019). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's Daubert motion excluding plaintiff's expert Dr. Gordon's product contamination and specific causation opinions, granted in part and denied in part Colgate's motion in limine on talc sample authenticity, and found plaintiff's motion in limine moot.
• Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP (2015). The district court granted summary judgment to the law firm Brown & Gould, attorney Daniel Brown and David Lipman, P.A. on all three counts and denied Nieves Rocha's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
• Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ray EX rel. Boyd (2010). The court granted the estate's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Conrail's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Rail Act does not bar the estate from pursuing Conrail as a successor in the Ohio FELA asbestos case.

Florida

• Ripple v. CBS Corporation (2024). The Florida Supreme Court held that Jennifer Ripple, who married the decedent after his asbestos exposure and diagnosis, can recover as a "surviving spouse" under section 768.21(2), approved the Fifth District's Domino's decision, and quashed the Fourth District's ruling against her (which had favored the defendants).
• Gallo v. Carnival Corporation (2023). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand and sent the case back to Texas state court, holding that Carnival Corporation had not shown federal jurisdiction based on the arbitration agreements.
• Lornamead, Inc. v. Fleemin (4th District, 2023). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Lornamead's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed the trial court to dismiss Lornamead from the action, so Lornamead won and the Fleemins lost.
• Smith v. Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. (1st District, 2023). The First District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had granted to Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction and remanded, ruling for the estate of Joan Smith.
• Andres v. Raytheon Technologies Corp. (2022). The court granted Huntsman Corp.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the second amended complaint as to Huntsman without leave to amend and without jurisdictional discovery.
• Ripple v. CBS Corporation (4th District, 2022). The court affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the decedent's wife's wrongful death damages claim under Kelly, but reversed summary judgment against the adult children's claim, so the estate won in part and the defendants won in part, and conflict with Domino's Pizza was certified.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Font (3rd District, 2020). The court reversed the final judgment for Paula Font against Union Carbide and remanded for a third trial, because excluded affidavits and a flawed learned intermediary instruction were errors, while rejecting Union Carbide's causation argument and Font's cross-appeal on Johns Manville.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the jury verdict for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding the adverse-inference sanction improper and the evidence of Bechtel's possession and control of the plant insufficient.
• DeLisle v. Crane Co. (2018). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision, which had ordered a new trial for R.J. Reynolds (as Lorillard's successor) and a directed verdict for Crane, and remanded for reinstatement of DeLisle's $8 million final judgment.
• Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Highland Stucco and Lime v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco and Lime Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Southern Wall Products v. Bolin (4th District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the denial of Southern Wall Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed the trial court to dismiss SWP from the Bolins' suit.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (3rd District, 2017). The appeals court reversed the jury judgment for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding insufficient evidence that Bechtel controlled the premises and error in the adverse inference instruction.
• Doolin v. American Optical Corporation (2017). The court denied the plaintiff's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against defendant BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, so Morse TEC prevailed on the motion.
• Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (4th District, 2017). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the widow's consortium damages claim under the Wrongful Death Act, ruling for the defendants (Georgia-Pacific, Union Carbide and others) against Janis Kelly, because she married the decedent after his asbestos exposure.
• Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation v. Britt (3rd District, 2017). The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment and jury verdict for Mrs. Britt and her husband's estate against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, rejecting all five of Northrop's arguments.
• Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Jones (2nd District, 2017). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because Mrs. Jones did not show minimum contacts with Florida, and remanded for the trial court to consider her motion to compel jurisdictional discovery.
• Batchelor v. American Optical Corp. (2016). The district court granted the Batchelors' motion to remand the case to Florida state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over CBS/Westinghouse's federal officer removal, and denied their request for attorney's fees and costs.
• Crane Co. v. DeLisle (4th District, 2016). The appeals court reversed the $8 million verdict, directing entry of a directed verdict for Crane Co. and ordering a new trial on all issues, including damages, for R.J. Reynolds (as successor to Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose), because expert causation testimony was wrongly admitted.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (2016). The court granted the defendants' motion in part, dismissing Marsha Dugas's individual claims (including Count IV, loss of consortium) so they proceed within the wrongful death action, and denied the motion to strike and the demand for more detail about survivors.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (2016). The court granted 3M summary judgment on the design defect and fraudulent concealment claims, denied it on the failure to warn claim, and partly excluded plaintiff's expert Darell Bevis (no design opinion; product identification opinion allowed).