17 results for “Owens-Illinois”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 22, 2020 · in the opinion
Gomez v. Aardvark Contractors, Inc. (2020)
…by E. John Litchfield, Berrigan & Litchfield, LLC, Kathy L. Torregano, Berrigan & Litchfield, LLC & Michael J. Marsiglia, Berrigan & Litchfield, LLC. Owens Illinois, Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 18, 2019 · in the opinion
Rodrigue v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2019)
…for summary judgment, plaintiffs have either moved to dismiss or settled with the following defendants which were party to the Joint Defendants' motion: FMC Corporation,\[20\] Ingersoll-Rand Company,\[21\] McCarty Corporation,\[22\] Owens-Illinois, Inc.…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 16, 2018 · in the opinion
Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018)
…answers are referenced in this opinion as coming from Firestone, since that is where Mr. Finch worked. \[2\] Kaylo is a form of pipe insulation that Owens-Corning manufactured. Docs. 306-7 at 84; 317-1…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 28, 2022 · in the opinion
Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2022)
…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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · March 23, 2021 · in the opinion
McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021)
…On August 18, 1972, Defendant wrote to Duke Power to confirm that Covil would use "Owens Corning Asbestos Free Calcium Silicate Pipe Covering and Block for the ducts, feed water heaters, and piping where Thermobestos was…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · April 27, 2021 · in the opinion
Connor v. Covil Corporation (2021)
…For instance, Appellant cites Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, where we affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of causation. See 69 F.3d at 716…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 22, 2018 · in the opinion
Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018)
…plaintiff "must present \evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.'" Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Amchem Prods.…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · December 11, 2018 · in the opinion
Connor v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2018)
…a personal injury asbestos case \\[to\] prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product' containing asbestos in order to hold \[the defendant\] liable." Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · March 22, 2021 · in the opinion
McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021)
…must present \evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff worked.'" Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · May 18, 2020 · in the opinion
Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020)
…plaintiff "\must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product' containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable." See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · October 26, 2020 · in the opinion
Robertson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2020)
…179, 644 S.E.2d 724 (2007) (adopting the Lohrmann test for actionable exposure in South Carolina); Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying the Lohrmann test in…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 16, 2021 · in the opinion
Vinson v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021)
…plaintiff "\must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product' containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable." See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 16, 2021 · in the opinion
Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)
…plaintiff "\must prove more than a casual or minimum contact with the product' containing asbestos in order to hold the manufacturer of that product liable." See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712…
-
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…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 21, 2008 · in the opinion
Early v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2008)
…Grumman Aircraft Corp. From 1965 through 1993, he worked as a millwright, maintaining machinery, including presses, ovens, boilers, pumps, and valves. He worked in the boiler room and assisted in dismantling the boiler room, which he…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 25, 2020 · in the opinion
Montell v. Viking Pump (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
…expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state." (CPLR …
-
Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · July 24, 2024 · in the opinion
Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (2024)
…owned by or rented to the named insured." The exclusion thus contemplates a situation where the insured manufactures or distributes products at a facility it owns or rents and the injury occurs away from that facility…