10 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 18, 2019 · in the opinion
Rodrigue v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2019)
…to the Joint Defendants' motion.\[17\] Plaintiffs opposed summary judgment for only three of the Joint Defendants: General Electric Company; Foster Wheeler, LLC; and CBS Corporation.\[18\] But on April 11, 2019, plaintiffs, General Electric Company…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · February 27, 1992 · in the opinion
Betts v. Manville Personal Injury Trust (1992)
…that would include fibrosis of the lungs. Plaintiffs do not contend the answers to the special interrogatories are inconsistent with the general verdicts as to Deitz and Lehr. The language employed is not ambiguous or confusing…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 …
-
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…
-
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…