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

Search

12 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”

  1. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · August 11, 2021 · in the opinion

    Hayes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)

    …loss, liability or damage for a period of two years. An exhibit to the agreement showed that "the Corporation" had received a subpoena duces tecum in a lawsuit against Owens-Corning Fiberglass, among other defendants, that…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · August 29, 2014 · in the opinion

    Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014)

    …S. 121, 124-26, 129-35 (1989); Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124, 127 (3d Cir. 1998). The Court analyzes the requirements and determines that the Contractor Defendants satisfy each. A. Corporate…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · November 9, 2021 · in the opinion

    Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)

    …of such a nature as to raise a reasonable inference that \[s\]he inhaled asbestos fibers that emanated from it.'" Wilson, 807 A.2d at 923 (quoting Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 1999 Pa. Super…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 2, 2014 · in the opinion

    McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014)

    …week ending September 6, 1970, it reported that "Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. arrived on the job under their contract to supply and install all piping and machinery insulation and to install boiler insulation." Dkt. 32-22…

  5. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 17, 2022 · in the opinion

    Aylward v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2022)

    …FMC CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOULD PUMPS LLC, ITT LLC., KEELER-DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY, NAVISTAR, INC., A/K/A INTERNATIONAL, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), RILEY POWER INC, THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY, U.S. RUBBER…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · January 25, 2012 · in the opinion

    Rabovsky v. Goulds Pumps (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI), 2012)

    …the ability to establish specific testing relating to a particular plaintiff is exceedingly problematic. See, e.g. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, 941 P.2d 1203, 16 Cal. 4th 953, 957 (Ca.1997).\[5\] It is clear…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · July 11, 2022 · in the opinion

    Shelton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022)

    …a showing that plaintiff's "particular asbestos disease is cumulative in nature" which can be satisfied by establishing that "a series of exposures was a \legal cause' of \[plaintiff's\] injury." Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.…

  8. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 18, 2021 · in the opinion

    Kriz v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2021)

    In opposition to Armstrong's motion, Plaintiff argues that a product manufacturer like Armstrong owes innocent persons injured from its defective product, like decedent, a clear duty to warn under New York law, especially in "take…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 26, 2015

    Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015)

    …because of disputed facts. Under maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for, and owes no duty to warn about, asbestos-containing parts it did not manufacture or supply, and a plaintiff must show exposure to…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 5, 2021

    Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)

    …factor, with evidence of the amount and duration of exposure. A manufacturer owes a duty to warn about third-party replacement parts only if its product requires the part to function as intended. Causation; Product Identification…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · March 19, 2019 · in the opinion

    Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)

    …A trial is the appropriate means to determine what obligations, if any, each Defendant owes to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have not shown that they cannot obtain complete relief from any Defendant without the absent parties. Second…

  12. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 26, 2016 · in the opinion

    Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (2016)

    …Jan. 12, 2015) (court order). \[12\] Owen v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 153 Wash.2d 780, 787, 108 P.3d 1220 (2005). \[13\] Owen, 153 Wash.2d at 787, 108 P.3d 1220…