No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

18 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)

    …Fibreboard, Foster Wheeler, GAF Corporation, Garlock, General Electric, Owens-Illinois, Pittsburgh Corning and Westinghouse were cross-claim defendants. Crane Packing was found not liable and is not involved in this appeal. \[6\] See part III, section…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 8, 1998 · in the opinion

    Ford Motor v. Wood (1998)

    …a duty to warn of dangers inherent in maintaining and repairing the manufacturer's products, do not persuade us to the contrary. Bich v. General Electric Co., 27 Wash.App. 25, 614 P.2d 1323 (1980)…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997 · in the opinion

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …3\] (Emphasis added). In addition, the legislative history of C.J. § 11-108 indicates that the General Assembly intended that the cap apply broadly, as opposed to only malpractice claims. In January 1986, Senate Bill No…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion

    ACandS v. Abate (1998)

    The Western Electric plant was comprised of several buildings and was approximately three miles long and one-and-one-quarter miles deep. Morrow indicated that he worked primarily in the wire insulation building until he became…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 27, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Asner (1995)

    …Travelers"), PH's insurer, in which Travelers stated: The Travelers Insurance Company has been underwriting your Workmen's Compensation and General Liability since January 1953 and unfortunately, there have been some serious losses during this period…

  6. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 11, 1996 · in the opinion

    ACandS Inc. v. Asner (1996)

    …Payne (Payne). Jean Payne and respondent Harriet Hess are the personal representatives of Payne's estate. Payne was an electrician at the Fairfield Shipyard in Baltimore during World War II. He died on March 24, 1992…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 31, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Baltimore City (1996)

    …were discussed. This file would cover five or six hundred pages, which can be microphotographed in the library of the Surgeon General in Washington or in some other medical library. It is unclear, however, from the…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 1, 1999 · in the opinion

    Owens Corning v. Bauman (1999)

    …it is not within our purview to usurp [\766] the legislative function of the General Assembly or to overrule a decision of the Court of Appeals. Maryland Declaration of Rights and Maryland Constitution Amicus White Lung…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    Castleman also testified that some general-knowledge encyclopedias included notes on asbestosis as early as 1939 or 1940. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this evidence and held that "\[a\] jury ... could reasonably infer that Porter…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · September 12, 1991

    Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty (1991)

    …the insured, was entitled to a defense and indemnity because coverage is triggered at least by exposure to its asbestos products during the policy period. Under a standard form comprehensive general liability policy, "bodily injury" from…

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 15, 1998 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998)

    …verdict in favor of the hirer. The trial proceeded, resulting in judgments in favor of the plaintiff against the adverse driver and his general employer. On the plaintiff's appeal, the Court vacated the judgment in…

  12. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 25, 1999 · in the opinion

    Owens Corning v. Walatka (1999)

    …For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the general rule imposing the burden on the plaintiff should be applied in this case against appellees. A. THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STATUTORY CAP DOES NOT…

  13. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)

    …283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…

  14. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 18, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995)

    …we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have, in general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure occurring 20 or 30 years ago, which have given rise to these consequences…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · September 12, 1994 · in the opinion

    US Gypsum v. Baltimore (1994)

    …defendant's argument that certain deposition testimony was irrelevant as state of the art evidence merely because it was the testimony of an asbestos manufacturer's medical director rather than evidence from the general scientific community…

  16. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. James (1999)

    …exposure to asbestos. The issue really is the more general one—whether forcing any movant to await final judgment makes the issue of inconvenient forum effectively non-reviewable. Our view as to that was, to some…

  17. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)

    … 388 (1965), observing that the section had previously been adopted as a general principle in the duty to warn area by previous Maryland cases. Section 388 states as follows: Chattel Known to Be Dangerous for Intended…