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 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · September 30, 2015 · in the opinion

    Hedden v. CBS Corporation (2015)

    …later diagnosis of a distinct malignant asbestos-related condition. The diagnosis of a malignant asbestos-related condition creates a new cause of action." Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 601 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Wis…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2009 · in the opinion

    Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2009)

    …other factors. But the same court also cited with approval the Hansen v. Owens\[-Corning Fiberglas Corp.\] (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, deferring to that court's opinion in the context of asbestos litigation. The…

  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 · 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming · April 7, 2014 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Prod. Liab. Trust (2014)

    …Keahey, Jr., Lawrence Holcomb, Law Offices of G. Patterson Keahey, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Owens-Illinois Inc., pro se. Walter S. Jenkins, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher Conley, Evert & Weathersby, LLC, Atlanta…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · October 14, 2010 · in the opinion

    Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (2010)

    … 36. Negligence or products-liability causes of action that involve latent diseases, such as asbestosis, are subject to the three-year statute of limitations under Section 15-1-49. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards, 573 So…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 30, 2014 · in the opinion

    Barnes v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (2014)

    …Goulds Pump Inc., Ingersoll Rand Company Limited, and Owens Illinois Incorporated alleging that he continually worked with, used, handled and was caused to come in contact with Defendants' asbestos-containing products and the asbestos dust and…

  10. 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…

  11. 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.

  12. 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…