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

Search

12 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · July 8, 1988 · in the opinion

    Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1988)

    …any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be located." State v. General Electric Co., 592 F.Supp. 291, 295 (N.D. NY 1984) (citation omitted)…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 17, 1998 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1998)

    …that exposure sufficient to cause asbestosis is also sufficient to cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and pleural plaques. \[18\] The crafts were divided into four general groupings: "Production Crafts" (some thirteen in all, including e.g. pumper…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · October 21, 1980

    Ins. Co. North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1980)

    …Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual lost, and Forty-Eight and Travelers largely won. Under standard comprehensive general liability policies, 'bodily injury' from asbestosis occurs when tissue damage begins on inhalation of fibers, not at…

  4. Company document · 1984

    Celotex's Answers to Plaintiff's Master Interrogatories in Laird v. Celotex (1984)

    …first warnings to 1972. Its answers give two reasons for making Careytemp asbestos-free in 1969: "the controversy" after a year of using amosite, and "the general acceptance of Dr. Selikoff's study". They also date…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · May 4, 1978 · in the opinion

    Ins. Co. of No. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1978)

    …lawsuits. D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cases dealing with statute of limitation issues are not applicable to this coverage problem. See, Tijsseling v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 55 Cal.App.3d 623, 127 Cal…

  9. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · April 27, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989)

    …of Trial Lawyers of America; Richard H. Robblee on behalf of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, amici curiae for appellants. [\638] Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, Michael E. Tardif, Senior Assistant, and Michael Madden, Assistant…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…