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

• Braxton v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2024). The court granted defendant J-M Manufacturing's motion for leave to designate responsible third parties, rejecting plaintiff Braxton's objections on pleading sufficiency, limitations timing and bankruptcy proofs of claim.
• C&d Contractors, Inc. v. McLaughlin (2023). The Superior Court granted in part and denied in part the Estate's motion, awarding it $27,490.00 in attorneys' fees at reduced hourly rates and $221.25 in costs against employer C&D Contractors.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The Delaware Supreme Court refused Hennessy Industries' petition for an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court's denial of summary judgment, so the case against Hennessy continues for plaintiff Estrada.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The Superior Court denied defendant Hennessy Industries' request to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of the earlier denial of its summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Estrada prevailed on this request.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The court denied Hennessy Industries' motion for reargument, so its earlier oral denial of summary judgment on the duty-to-warn claim stood and the plaintiff, Lisa Estrada, prevailed on this motion.
• Roadarmel v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The magistrate judge recommended denying Curtiss-Wright's motion for summary judgment, so Plaintiff Patricia Roadarmel's claims over her husband's mesothelioma death could go forward.
• In re Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC (2023). After a paper-record trial, the Court of Chancery held that petitioner Linda Cook showed good cause to appoint a receiver for the cancelled gasket company Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC over its objection, deferred ruling on nullifying the certificate of cancellation, and ordered that she bear any unpaid receiver fees.
• Droz v. Hennessy Industries, LLC (2022). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding Shelley Droz raised a genuine issue of material fact that her husband was exposed to asbestos dust from grinding asbestos-containing brake drum shoes.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against Rickey and Barbara Thorne on all claims, including loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• McLaughlin v. C&d Contractors (2022). The Superior Court reversed the Industrial Accident Board's use of the 1989 last-exposure date for the average weekly wage, affirmed its use of the 2017 diagnosis date for the maximum rate, and remanded, so the widow of William McLaughlin Jr. prevailed over C&D Contractors.
• Gilstrap v. CBS Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants General Dynamics and Electric Boat against the Gilstrap plaintiffs, with prejudice, because plaintiffs offered no evidence of exposure to those defendants' products and did not respond to the motion.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The district court overruled Foster Wheeler's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, so the Cox plaintiff's claims proceed.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). A magistrate judge recommended denying Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on causation, failure to warn under Devries, and the government contractor defense, so plaintiff Doris Anne Cox's claims against Foster Wheeler would proceed.
• Cox v. Nash Engineering Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting Nash Engineering's unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Doris Anne Cox because there was no evidence Mr. Cox was exposed to a Nash product.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge granted the defendants' (Crane Co., ITT, Johnson Controls and Metropolitan Life) joint motion and ruled that Iowa substantive law, not North Dakota law as the Thornes argued, governs all claims and defenses.
• Carnes v. General Dynamics Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting General Dynamics' motion for summary judgment against the Carnes plaintiffs because they produced no evidence that Mr. Carnes was exposed to an asbestos-containing product attributable to General Dynamics.
• Gibbs v. 84 Lumber Company (2020). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment on the Gibbses' design-defect and failure-to-warn claims.
• Pearsons v. Heidelberg USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Heidelberg USA's summary judgment motion on causation, statute of repose and product misuse, and granted it only on the willful and wanton conduct claim, which Mrs. Pearsons did not contest.
• Pruitt v. Gardner Denver (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The district court overruled Gardner Denver's and Warren Pumps' objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied both companies' motions for summary judgment against plaintiff John Pruitt.
• Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The Delaware Superior Court granted Hennessy Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Petit plaintiffs, because plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos-containing brakes or to friable asbestos with the AMMCO machines.
• Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Amdura and BorgWarner Morse TEC, and denying summary judgment for Gardner Denver and Warren Pumps, in John Pruitt's mesothelioma suit.
• Pruitt v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Taco, Terex and Trane, and partial summary judgment for Deere, against plaintiff John Pruitt, who did not oppose the motions.
• Shaw v. American Friction (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the Shaws' motion to move the trial group, and the resulting dismissal, in favor of the defendants; two justices dissented.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the $40.625 million compensatory verdict for Paula Knecht in place.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (2020). The bankruptcy court denied the motions of Denis and Meri Bergschneider and Kaye Heinzmann to file late asbestos proofs of claim, ruling for the reorganized Debtors and Sempra Energy.
• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (2020). The Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Energy Future Holdings' plan, ruling against the latent asbestos claimants (appellants) and for the reorganized EFH debtors.
• Stimson v. AO Smith Corporation (2020). The court denied plaintiff Janet Stimson's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict for defendant Cleaver-Brooks, finding the verdict not against the weight of the evidence and the jury-confusion argument unpreserved and meritless.
• Vocciante v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. and Flowserve US, Inc. against the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs could not show that either defendant's products were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Vocciante's mesothelioma.
• Evans v. Imo Industries, Inc. (2019). The court granted John Crane's motion to exclude Plaintiff's Navy expert, Captain Moore, only as to his testimony on Navy warning requirements, and denied it on Navy procurement, undisclosed reliance documents and asbestos exposure, so Plaintiff mostly prevailed.
• Evans v. John Crane, Inc. (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine on collateral sources and wrongful death damages, denied John Crane's motion to exclude survival damages, denied its request for a bifurcated trial, and overruled its objections to the magistrate judge's ruling that plaintiff's Navy procurement expert was qualified.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ford's motion for judgment as a matter of law and its inconsistent-verdict challenge, but reversed on the excessive-damages ruling and remanded so the Superior Court could assess the full $40,625,000 verdict for new trial or remittitur; Ford won in part and Knecht won in part.
• Mosher v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's (successor to Buffalo Pumps) motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher because the evidence did not show its pump was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Mosher v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all ten defendants (ABB, Aurora Pump, Crosby Valve, FMC, Gardner Denver, Gould Electronics, Pfizer, Siemens, Union Carbide and Warren Pumps) against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher, who did not respond to the motions.
• Stimson v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Janet Stimson's motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. on product identification.
• Rogers v. Asbestos Corp. Limited (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The district court overruled Rogers's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and granted summary judgment to Asbestos Corporation Limited and Charles A. Wagner Company, so Rogers lost his claims against both.
• Rogers v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Warren Pumps, General Electric, Air & Liquid Systems, Charles A. Wagner Co., and Asbestos Corporation Ltd. against plaintiff Richard Rogers, because he could not show exposure to any defendant's product.
• Rogers v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting defendant Nosroc Corp.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Richard Wayne Rogers because he offered no evidence of exposure to any Nosroc product.
• Rowland v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Jane and Douglas Rowland because they could not show that the joint compound they used contained Union Carbide's asbestos.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its alternative motion for a new trial, and its motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the plaintiff's jury verdict in place.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all fourteen defendants, such as Air & Liquid, Crosby, Flowserve and Warren Pumps, and rejecting plaintiff Johansen's claims because he did not respond to the motions or show his exposure to their products.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion on the negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive damages claims, because Johansen's brake exposure was de minimis and Ford owed no duty to warn about third-party replacement parts; this favors Ford over plaintiff Johansen.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Ford and Goodyear and the denial of the Richards' request to supplement their expert report or for reargument.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, because plaintiff Thomas-Fish did not plead facts supporting successor liability or punitive damages.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' (Avborne, Dover, Roller Bearing, Sargent entities) Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing most counts without prejudice with 15 days to amend, and dismissing the ultra-hazardous product count with prejudice.
• Call v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Marilyn Kay Call, holding Indiana's "but for" causation standard applies and her expert's opinion did not meet it.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court denied the Richards plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert's report and for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Fairbanks, Ford and Goodyear.
• Pieno v. Crosby Valve (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Crosby Valve, Fairbanks, BorgWarner Morse Tec, Flowserve and Warren Pumps against plaintiffs John and Dione Pieno, who did not respond to the motions.
• Kister v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps, Fairbanks, CertainTeed, Foster Wheeler, Union Carbide, Aurora and Pfizer, because Mr. Kister identified none of their asbestos-containing products and the plaintiff did not respond.
• Kivell v. Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted Georgia Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Sandra Kivell's wrongful death and survival claims were time barred under Louisiana's one-year limit.
• Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The Superior Court affirmed the Special Master's order excluding William Don Sykes's videotaped trial deposition at trial, a ruling for the defendants and against the plaintiff estate.