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

• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America, because the unopposed motions showed no evidence that Mr. Charlevoix was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Evans v. CBS Corp. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of CBS, Crane, Union Carbide, Ingersoll Rand, FMC, McNally and Western Auto Supply against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans.
• Evans v. Flowserve US Inc. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment against Phillip and Naomi Walsh because they did not show that Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos from Aurora's products.
• Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court denied Pneumo Abex LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Raymond Leathers' claims against Abex go forward to trial.
• Walsh v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiffs Phillip and Naomi Walsh, finding no evidence Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos parts the defendant was responsible for.
• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Caterpillar, VIAD, Warren Pumps, Crane and Ford, because the plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos from any of their products, so the plaintiff lost against all five.
• Kivell v. Air Prods. and Chemicals (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Air Products and Chemicals Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability and wrongful death claims, ruling against plaintiff Sandra Kivell.
• Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Sandra Kivell's negligence and strict liability claims, so Union Carbide won and the plaintiff lost.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Foster Wheeler and Warren Pumps because the Evans plaintiffs failed to show exposure to asbestos from either defendant's product that was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Kivell v. Murphy Oil USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims brought by Sandra Kivell, so the plaintiff lost.
• Evans v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended that the District Judge deny John Crane's motion for partial summary judgment on the Evans plaintiffs' punitive damages claim, because a factual dispute exists about what John Crane knew.
• Tallman v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, finding no evidence that Mr. Tallman was exposed to asbestos from a Foster Wheeler product, and also recommended judgment on the punitive damages claim.
• Shaw v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Union Carbide's unopposed motion for summary judgment against Ralph and Joan Shaw because Mr. Shaw did not identify a Union Carbide asbestos product.
• Denbow v. CBS Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for CBS Corporation/Westinghouse and Crane Co. against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, because she did not show Mr. Denbow was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Charlevoix v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America against plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Charlevoix, who did not oppose the motions, because there was no evidence of exposure to either defendant's asbestos-containing product.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Evans v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Sturgill v. 3M Company, Inc. (2017). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Larry and Jill Sturgill because the record did not show Mr. Sturgill was exposed to Union Carbide's asbestos in the joint compounds he used.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asebestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding any error in the partial summary judgment on third-party replacement brake parts was harmless because the jury found Ford not negligent.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy, Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended denying the Evans plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that Foster Wheeler, Westinghouse and Crane each established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec (2016). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's denial of Genuine Parts' motion to dismiss, holding Delaware lacked personal jurisdiction over the Georgia corporation, so the Cepecs' claims against it were dismissed.
• Hillyer v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2016). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Sarco and Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo Pumps), granting it for MSA, Copes-Vulcan and Crane only on punitive damages, and otherwise denying it so the Hillyers' claims against those three proceed.
• Denbow v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corporation and Georgia-Pacific against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, and dismissing them with prejudice, because plaintiff offered no product identification evidence and did not respond.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Charlevoix v. CBS Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to CBS/Westinghouse, Goodyear, FMC/Northern Pump and Ingersoll Rand because the unopposed motions showed plaintiffs had no evidence of exposure to those defendants' products.
• Hillyer v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation Hillyer) (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to ABB, CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union Carbide and Gould against the Hillyers, who did not oppose the motions.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Cummins, CBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and Foster Wheeler against Charles and Elizabeth Malone, while finding the learned intermediary and government contractor defenses did not independently warrant judgment.
• Shaw v. Andritz Inc. (2016). The magistrate judge granted the Shaws' motion to apply Connecticut substantive law and denied the defendants' motion to apply maritime law, because the locality test was not met.
• Tetteh v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (2016). The court granted summary judgment to AT&T Corp. and rejected the claim by Danielle Tetteh, individually and as administrator of Daniel Jones' estate, that the parent company was liable for Jones' mesothelioma.
• Wines v. Abb, Inc. (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to Delaware state court, finding Rockwell's removal timely but its federal officer removal basis unproven.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Honeywell and Ingersoll Rand and against the plaintiff, because the evidence did not show frequent, regular, proximate exposure to either company's asbestos-containing product.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to nine defendants (John Crane, Flowserve, Carver Pump, Velan Valve, Cleaver-Brooks, Sterling Fluid Systems, FMC, Crane Co. and Borg-Warner Morse Tec) and against the plaintiff, who filed no response.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants Crane Co., Ingersoll Rand, Velan Valve, Zurn Industries and Pfizer, with prejudice, because the Malones filed notices of non-opposition, and recommended that the defendants' separate motion to dismiss be terminated as moot.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for nine defendants (Air & Liquid Systems, Armstrong International, Atwood & Morrill, Blackmer Pump, Crown Cork & Seal, Flowserve, Nash Engineering, Trane US and William Powell) and dismissing them with prejudice because plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended converting Huntington Ingalls Industries' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion and giving the Malones 30 days to respond, because the company relied on an affidavit outside the pleadings.
• Dougherty v. AO Smith Corporation (2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting the Doughertys' motion to remand to Delaware Superior Court, finding Crane's federal officer removal proper but declining supplemental jurisdiction after Plaintiffs disclaimed all Navy and federal-site claims.
• Homax Products, Inc. v. Old Magic Corporation (2014). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Homax Products lacked standing to pursue its indemnification, breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against Old Magic, Alscott, Acme and the Zeilingers.
• Muse v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2014). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Honeywell International Inc. against James Muse and Clarice Roberts-Muse.
• Pavlick v. AM General (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2014). The court granted AM General's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff Olga Pavlick offered no evidence that her husband worked on trucks made by AM General.
• RT Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Galliher (2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's $2,864,583.33 judgment for Galliher against R.T. Vanderbilt and remanded for a new trial, because of the missing jury instruction on the employer's duty of care and the prejudicial inadmissible testimony.
• Farrall v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2013). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, leaving in place its grant of summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on the failure to warn claim about asbestos-containing replacement parts.
• Phillips v. Hoffman/New Yorker (In re Asbestos Litigation Phillips) (2013). The court denied Hoffman/New Yorker's motion for summary judgment, holding Virginia law can impose a duty for asbestos in third-party replacement pads and that the record on whether Phillips was exposed to asbestos pads was too unclear to resolve; Plaintiff Phillips prevailed on the motion.
• Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (2012). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to Greyhound Lines, Inc. against Virginia Edmisten, finding no sufficient evidence that Greyhound supplied asbestos-containing brakes or clutches.
• Galliher v. R. T. Vanderbilt (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2012). The court allowed plaintiff's late-disclosed geologist (Fitzgerald) to testify, excluded plaintiff's other late expert (Dr. Rigler), continued the trial to July 16, 2012 so defendant R. T. Vanderbilt could develop rebuttal evidence, and sanctioned defendant's out-of-state counsel $5000.
• McCoy v. PolyVision Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2012). The court granted summary judgment to PolyVision Corp. against Janine and Marvin McCoy, predicting Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on an employer or premises owner to an employee's spouse for take-home asbestos exposure.
• In re Flintkote Co. (2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited's objections, confirmed Flintkote's amended joint plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust, and recommended that the District Court affirm confirmation and the § 524(g) injunction.
• In re Geier (2012). The Superior Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Douglas Geier's mesothelioma suit for forum non conveniens, finding they had not shown overwhelming hardship, and set a later hearing on costs under Rule 41(d).
• In re the Flintkote Company (2012). The bankruptcy court overruled Imperial Tobacco Canada's objections, confirmed the Flintkote and Flintkote Mines reorganization plan with its § 524(g) asbestos trust injunction, and recommended that the District Court affirm, so the plan proponents (the Debtors, the asbestos claimants' committee and the future claimants' representative) prevailed over ITCAN.
• Martinez v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. (2012). The court granted DuPont's motion to dismiss the Argentine widow's asbestos suit, holding that she sued the wrong party, failed to plead a viable direct claim, failed to join the indispensable Argentine subsidiary, and that forum non conveniens also required dismissal.
• Pease v. Ford Motor Company (2012). The district court adopted the Special Master's report, rejected Crane Company's objections, and denied Crane's second motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against Crane continued.
• Dana Companies, LLC v. Crawford (2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed denial of Dana's and Zoom's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, but reversed in part the denial of the plaintiffs' additur motion and remanded for reconsideration of the damages awards.