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

Search

8 results for “General Electric”

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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 …

  7. 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…

  8. 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…