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

Search

17 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 29, 1998 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Owens-Illinois (1998)

    …percent of the cases where no asbestos exposure is involved, according to one of appellant's own medical experts. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to determine. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 28, 2008 · in the opinion

    McCann v. Foster Wheeler (2008)

    …law, McCann's claim did not accrue until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and is not barred by the lapse of time. (See Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 520, 531, fn…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 24, 2023 · in the opinion

    Hutchins v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2023)

    …When there are multiple causes of injury, "a defendant's conduct is a cause in fact if it is a substantial factor generating plaintiff's harm." Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So. 2d 118…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 22, 2011 · in the opinion

    Auletta v. Crane Co (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation Cluster, 2011)

    …contractors' defenses. This is an area of law that is still developing and is unique to this group of cases. See: Feidt v, Owens Corning Fibergalss Corp., 153 F3d 124 (3rd Cir. 1998). It will require…

  6. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 1, 2010

    Crane v. Linkus (2010)

    George Linkus, a Baltimore shipyard machinist, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2005 and sued John Crane, Inc. and others. He had worked at the Key Highway shipyard from 1952 to 1959, overhauling valves and packing them with dry, powdery…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · April 13, 1989

    Kaiser v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1989)

    Sol Kaiser, a Navy veteran, and his wife and children sued several asbestos manufacturers in federal court in Puerto Rico for harm from his asbestos exposure. Kaiser served from 1948 to 1952, repairing insulated pipes on destroyers, where he cut and…

  8. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 4, 2015

    Brady v. Crane Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2015)

    Plaintiffs asked the New York County Supreme Court to consolidate thirteen asbestos cases for joint trial in two groups. All but one of the plaintiffs had lung cancer. Miceli and Ward had mesothelioma. Most had died, and Miller and Morgan were…

  9. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · January 4, 2021 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021)

    …statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope." Howard, 504 S.W.3d at 269 (quoting Owens v. State…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 19, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)

    …Dkt. No. 418 at 5. But Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that exposure to Defendants' products was a substantial factor causing his illness. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982 (Cal…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 20, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Toy Asbestos, 2021)

    …exposed to asbestos from Defendant's products; and (2) this exposure was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Toy's injury and death. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 968-69 (Cal…

  12. 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.…

  13. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 2, 2011

    Conti v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2011)

    Eight plaintiffs, each of whom had or has lung cancer or mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, asked the New York County Supreme Court to try their cases together. All but one, David Giancarlo, had died. They named defendants including Crane Co. and…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · June 20, 2018 · in the opinion

    Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (2018)

    …possession and control of all or part of the plant such that it owed Mr. Batchelor the same duty that a landowner owes an invitee under the law of premises liability. For the reasons explained below…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 1, 2012 · in the opinion

    Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2012)

    …now holds that, under maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty to warn of the hazards inherent in, asbestos products that the manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute.

  17. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …e have no basis to conclude in this diversity case that the Tennessee Supreme Court would overrule its prior decisions holding that a manufacturer owes no duty of care to consumers of products made by others…