Asbestos in Talc and Vermiculite: Asbestos Court Decisions

Decisions in our case-law library that involve talc and vermiculite: 231 cases, by state. Each line gives the exposure the court described, or else what it decided. For the topic itself, see Asbestos in Talc and Vermiculite.

New York

• Young v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). Consumer user of Avon talc products at 1961-1999
• Young v. Avon Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). User of Avon talc products at 1961 through 1999
• Olson v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). Consumer user of talcum powder at 1953-2015
• Germain v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). Consumer user of baby powder at 1971-2017
• LaFLAIR v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). Consumer of talcum powder
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (1st Dept., 2019). Talcum product user
• Rothlein v. Imerys Talc America (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). User of talcum powder at 1946-1964
• Alleyne v. Revlon (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). User of talc powder at 1980-2010
• Moldow v. AI Friedman, LP (2019). Child/consumer using talcum powder at home at 11 Riverside Drive, Manhattan (home), New York, 1977-1983
• Olson v. Brenntag N. AM. Inc. (2019). Consumer of Johnson's Baby Powder at 1953-2015
• Shanahan v. Kolmar Laboratories, Inc. (2019). The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to New York state court, finding Johnson & Johnson had not shown Kolmar was fraudulently joined, and denied Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees.
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (2019). User of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder at 1980-2011
• Brewer v. Avon Prods., Inc. (2018). Consumer user of Avon powder at 1977-2011
• Cohen v. American Biltrite Inc. (New York County, 2018). User of talcum powder at 1951 to the early 1970s
• Cohen v. American Biltrite Inc. (2018). Consumer user of talcum powder at 1951 to the early 1970s
• Cohen v. American Biltrite Inc. (2018). Consumer user of talcum powder at 1951 to the early 1970s
• Hooper-Lynch v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2018). Teacher (personal use of cosmetic talc) at Guyana and England, 1968-1979
• Hooper-Lynch v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2018). User of cosmetic talc product at 1968-1985
• Germain v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Consumer using baby powder on herself at 1971-2017
• Rothlein v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Child using baby powder at 1946-1964
• Shulman v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). User of cosmetic talc powder at 1990-1997
• Hooper-Lynch v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). User of cosmetic talc powder at 1968-1985
• Holleman v. Cosmetics Specialties (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Child at home at Childhood home, mid-1940s
• Black v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). User of cosmetic talc products at 1960-1973; 1973-2012/2014
• Crozier v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Consumer using baby powder and body powder at mid-1950s through the late 1960s
• Lindsey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Personal use of talcum powder at 1965-1983
• Cohen v. Imerys Talc America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). School teacher and school guidance coordinator at 1950s through 1970s
• Black v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Child/resident using talcum powder at 1967 or 1968 through 1973
• Matter of Adesso v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2018). Electronic mechanic at Brooklyn Navy Yard, 1956-1966
• Matter of Crozier v. Avon Prods., Inc. (2018). Consumer of cosmetic talcum powder at 1940s-2016
• Garrido v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Consumer using baby powder at 1976-1989, 2000-2006
• Niemeyer v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). Consumer user of cosmetic talc
• Pyle v. Pfizer Inc. (2018). 1953-1986
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (2018). Consumer use of baby powder (not work-related) at 1980-1990
• Zoas v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (2018). Consumer of talcum powder (personal and household use) at 1945-2017
• Klock v. Albany Intl. Corp. (Onondaga, 2017). Laborer, repairman's helper and trammel at Gouverneur Talc Company, 1969-2003
• Fogel v. American Int'l Indus. for Clubman (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2017). The court granted the motions of defendants Unilever (Brut) and Whittaker Clark & Daniels, reversed the Special Master's decision placing plaintiff in the in extremis cluster, and ordered the case moved to the next FIFO cluster.
• LoGiudice v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2016). The court affirmed the Special Master's recommendation and denied plaintiff Keri LoGiudice's motion for relief, leaving Colgate-Palmolive without having to answer her Notice to Admit or her supplemental document request 11.
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2016). Consumer user of talcum powder at 1950-1980s
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2013). Consumer user of talc powder
• Bernard v. Brookfield Props. Corp. (2012). User of talcum powder at late 1950s, at least twenty years
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2012). Consumer using talcum powder after showering at 1950 through the late 1980s
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2012). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' actions against Colgate-Palmolive for a joint trial, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's challenge.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2012). Zonolite/W.R. Grace plant, Dearborn, Michigan (alleged nearby source), 1950-1966
• Tedrick v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig.) (2011). Consumer user of talc powder at from age 12 to about 1972
• Bernard v. Brookfield Prop. Corp. (2010). User of body talcum powder

North Carolina

• Bell v. American International Industries (2022). Hairdresser at 1970s-2009
• Bell v. American International Industries (2021). Hairdresser at hair salons and her own home hair salon, 1970s-2009
• Bell v. American International Industries (2020). Hairdresser at hair salons, including her own home hair salon, 1970s-2009
• Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2019). Consumer of talc products at 1977-2016