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.

California

• Chavers v. Gatke Corp. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Gatke Corporation after a jury verdict, holding the trial court correctly refused the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy and concert of action jury instructions.
• Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit for the friction-product defendants (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen of America and Pneumo Abex), holding that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations barred the Cossmans' claims, including Max Cossman's loss of consortium claim.
• Dekens v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (4th Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2003). Affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Underwriters Laboratories, rejecting the Dekens heirs' wrongful death claim because U.L. never undertook to test or certify small appliances for asbestos health risks.
• Ferris v. Gatke Corporation (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Gatke Corporation, holding the trial court properly barred plaintiffs' market share (Sindell) theory and properly granted nonsuit on the civil conspiracy claims.
• Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiffs Ray Kinsman and his wife against Unocal and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not instructed on the limits on a premises owner's liability to an independent contractor's employee.
• Taylor v. John Crane, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2003). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs David and Susan Taylor against John Crane Inc., rejecting the plaintiffs' cross-appeal and upholding the jury's allocation of fault to the Navy.
• Hackett v. John Crane, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2002). The Court of Appeal reduced John Crane's settlement credit against Lewis's economic damages by $33,367, which raised the judgment for Lewis and Hackett to $1,026,842, and otherwise affirmed the judgment and the expert witness fee award against Crane.
• Ashdown v. Ameron International Corp. (1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Ameron International Corp. against the estate and family of Gary Smith, holding the workers' compensation remedy was their exclusive remedy.
• Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Daniel and Lois Wilson against John Crane, Inc., rejecting both John Crane's challenges and the plaintiffs' cross-appeal over the limit on noneconomic damages.
• Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1999). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Robert and Louise Overly against shipyard owner Ingalls Shipbuilding, rejecting Ingalls' challenges to the evidentiary rulings, the lost-years damages, and the settlement allocation.
• Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal held that ACL, a raw asbestos supplier, was properly held strictly liable, but that the trial court erred in not applying Proposition 51; it remanded for allocation of noneconomic damages between Owens Corning and ACL and otherwise affirmed the judgment for Arena.
• Gatton v. AP Green Services, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for A.P. Green Services, Inc. against the widow and heirs of Jerald Gatton, holding that another worker's deposition from a different case was inadmissible hearsay and left no evidence linking Green to Gatton's asbestos exposure.
• Petrini v. Mohasco Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Mohasco Corporation, holding Mohasco liable as successor in interest to Volker through the merger, in favor of Therese Petrini and the other plaintiffs.
• Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1998). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments for General Motors, holding that the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act preempted the railroad workers' and survivors' state-law tort claims over asbestos in locomotives.
• Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders staying the Hansens' California asbestos actions against Owens-Corning Fiberglas and others on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs lost and were directed to file in Montana.
• Jenkins v. T & N Plc (2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Milton and Maxine Jenkins against T&N PLC, rejecting T&N's argument that a bulk supplier of raw asbestos fiber cannot be strictly liable; each side bore its own costs.
• Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1995). The Court of Appeal struck $2 million in noneconomic damages, $63,000 in future medical expenses and $1,090,467 in future earning capacity from Mr. Morton's award, reduced Mrs. Morton's consortium award to $30,000, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglas.
• Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1995). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Charles and Betty Sparks, upholding the jury's findings that Owens-Illinois's Kaylo insulation was defective and was 100 percent responsible, and holding that Owens-Illinois waived its claim to allocate fault to the Navy.
• Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that the trial court correctly directed a verdict against Dumin on exposure to OCF Kaylo aboard the Pocono because the evidence was insufficient.
• Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 1987). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the pleadings for Western MacArthur, holding Hughes was not required to plead the dual capacity doctrine, though she was required to plead successor liability.
• Kaminski v. Western MacArthur Co. (1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 1985). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Jack and Rose Kaminski against Western MacArthur Company, holding it was successor to Western Asbestos Company, and denied Western MacArthur's writ petitions challenging summary judgment on successorship as academic.
• Arndt v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1976). The Court of Appeal annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's dismissal of the widow's death-benefit application as untimely and sent the case back to the Board, so Erla Arndt prevailed over Western Asbestos Company and the other respondents.

Colorado

• Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to join four additional parties, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, overruled the defendants' objection, and dismissed only the breach of warranty claims, so the take-home exposure negligence claims against the moving defendants survived.
• Church v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc. (2013). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Dana Kepner's motion to compel and the Churches' motions to quash and for protective orders: the fact and dates of the California settlements and the smoking admission must be provided, but settlement terms and amounts need not be.
• Church v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc. (2012). The court denied Dana Kepner Company's motion to dismiss, so Barbara Church's negligence, strict liability, conspiracy and wrongful death claims proceed.
• Wallic v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1999). The court granted plaintiff Sondra Wallic's motion and awarded her $3,433.57 in fees and costs against Pittsburgh Corning for the improper removal. It also awarded Rule 11 fees and costs against attorney Robert Hamblett and Hassard Bonnington LLP.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton (1993). The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the set-off ruling (only collected settlement sums count) but reversed the directed verdict on failure to warn, holding state-of-the-art evidence admissible, and sent the case back for a new trial, partly favoring Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois and partly Fenton.
• Fenton v. Fibreboard Corp. (5th Division, 1991). The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the $190,000 jury verdict for the plaintiff widow against Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois and the partial set-off ruling, but reversed the costs award and remanded for findings on costs.
• Rice v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1987). The court denied defendant John Crane's motion for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiff's claims against Crane in place because fact issues remained on whether Crane was a manufacturer under the Colorado Products Liability Act.

Connecticut

• In re Nash Engineering Company (2024). The court granted the Nash Holdings defendants' motion to dismiss the Bankruptcy Code section 548 claims (Counts II and III) with prejudice as untimely, and denied it as to the CUFTA fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment and subsequent-transfer claims, so the Trustee's remaining claims go forward.
• Dusto v. Rogers Corporation (2023). The Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment for Rogers Corporation on workers' compensation exclusivity and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Special Electric Company, Inc. as time barred.
• Carlson v. CBS Corporation (2020). The court granted General Electric's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Carlsons' claims against it with prejudice, along with Ms. Carlson's consortium claim and the cross-claims of Foster Wheeler and Crane Co.
• Clark v. Aii Acquisition, LLC (2018). The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the Clarks' asbestos personal injury suit on judicial estoppel grounds, ruling for Mrs. Clark against Boeing, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Bagley v. Adel Wiggins Group (2017). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict for the plaintiff and remanded with direction to grant Wyeth Holdings Corporation's motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, so Wyeth won and the Bagley plaintiff lost.
• Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2016). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the estate's asbestos claims against Lockheed Martin for lack of personal jurisdiction in Connecticut.
• Estate OF Rock v. University of Connecticut (2016). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part the Compensation Review Board's decision, holding the decedent's estate had no standing to pursue any workers' compensation benefits, and remanded with direction to dismiss the estate's claims, so the University of Connecticut prevailed.
• Martin Franchises, Inc. v. Cooper US, Inc. (2016). The Appellate Court reversed summary judgment for Martin Franchises against Cooper U.S. and remanded with direction to deny Martin Franchises' motion, because the supporting affidavit was improperly accepted.
• Bray v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2015). The court granted summary judgment to defendants Aurora, BW/IP, Carrier, Crane, Nash, Warren and Weir because the plaintiffs lacked evidence tying the defendants' products to St. Jean's asbestos exposure, and it dismissed Marilyn St. Jean's derivative loss of consortium claim.
• Brochu v. Aesys Technologies (2015). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's sua sponte dismissal of the executrix's asbestos action for failure to prosecute with due diligence, a ruling for the defendants Crane Co., Foster Wheeler and Goulds Pumps.
• Kotecki v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2009). The court denied the Koteckis' motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because Buffalo Pumps and General Electric showed a colorable federal officer (military contractor) defense.
• Carroll v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008). The district court denied the Carrolls' motion to remand, holding that defendants Viad, General Electric and Buffalo Pumps properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co. (2008). The court held that Buffalo Pumps satisfied the federal-officer removal requirements but removed too late under § 1446(b), so it granted Margaret Pantalone's motion to remand to Connecticut state court.
• Contois v. Able Industries Inc. (2007). The court denied the executrix's motion to remand, holding that Buffalo Pumps' removal was timely and that Buffalo Pumps and General Electric satisfied federal officer removal requirements, so the case stays in federal court.
• Machnik v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2007). The court denied Machnik's motion to remand to state court, finding that General Electric had justified federal officer removal, so the case stayed in federal court.
• Estate OF Frederick v. General Dynamics Corp. (1997). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and remanded so benefits would be awarded to the decedent's estate and dependent widow, ruling against Electric Boat/General Dynamics and its insurer.
• Green v. General Dynamics Corp. (1997). The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, which had denied the widow's claim, and remanded so the commissioner could calculate her weekly death benefits under § 31-310c; the widow, Celestina Green, won against Electric Boat and its insurers.
• Green v. General Dynamics Corp. (1996). The Appellate Court reversed the compensation review board's decision affirming dependent's death benefits for the widow, Celestina Green, and remanded with direction to deny her claim, so General Dynamics/Electric Boat and its insurers won.
• Bauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984). The court denied Johnson Asbestos Corporation's motion for summary judgment on limitations, so plaintiff Bauer's wrongful death suit proceeds, and granted its motion to dismiss only the consortium claim arising from the husband's death.

Delaware

• Salvemini v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2025). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps (Air & Liquid Systems) on all claims, and granting in part and denying in part the motions of ConocoPhillips and Hess, so that Salvemini's own Jones Act, maritime and punitive damages claims survive while all claims over his wife's take-home exposure are dismissed.
• Burhenn v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust (2024). The court granted the Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust's motion to dismiss, holding that Joyce Burhenn's claim over her husband's mesothelioma death was untimely, so the Trust won and the plaintiff lost.