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

Search

21 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 22, 2010 · in the opinion

    Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (2010)

    Such evidence is simply not "of sufficient weight to support a reasonable inference of causation." (Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 650, 656; see also McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., supra…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 8, 2010 · in the opinion

    Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)

    …the forum non conveniens motion can be granted. In that regard, Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753 (Hansen) is instructive. Hansen was an asbestos case with 200 named defendants. (Id…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · September 28, 2005 · in the opinion

    Lindstrom v. AC Product Liability Trust (2005)

    …the premises of plaintiff's workplace insufficient for liability to attach to defendant); Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162 (4th Cir. 1986) (same); Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Co., 726 F. Supp…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 7, 2014 · in the opinion

    Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014)

    …time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.'" Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Amchem Prods., Inc., 69 F.3d 712, 716 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156…

  5. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · August 2, 2017 · in the opinion

    Williams v. Placid Oil Company (2017)

    …Rubber & Gasket settled with Plaintiffs does not meet Ingersoll-Rand's burden of proof As noted by the trial court, the appellate court in Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 03-248, p.14 (La.App…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion

    Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)

    …1986); see also Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 2004-1589 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 923 So. 2d 118, writ denied sub nom. Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 2005-2318 (La. 3…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maine · September 16, 2020 · in the opinion

    Coffin v. Ametek, Inc. (2020)

    …a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.'" Id. (quoting Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 3, 2016 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Honeywell International Inc. (2016)

    …Karst & Von Oiste and George H. Kim for Plaintiff and Respondent. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION WILLHITE, Acting P.J. In Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford), the California Supreme Court addressed the…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion

    Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)

    …L.Rev. 1153, 1161.) This characteristic underlies our Supreme Court's conclusion in Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford) that "\[i\]n an asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff need not…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 14, 2019 · in the opinion

    Walker v. Blackmer Pump Co. (2019)

    …Owens testified that Decedent probably worked on every electrical system on the U.S.S. Plymouth Rock. Further, Mr. Owens stated that Decedent spent roughly fifty-percent of his two-years aboard the U.S.S…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 26, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)

    …ago. See, e.g., Brodkin Report at 64. Defendant first cites to the California Supreme Court's opinion in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois, Inc., regarding the proof of causation required in asbestos-related cases. 16 Cal…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 10, 2018 · in the opinion

    Hake v. Allied Fluid Products Corp. (2018)

    …was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff's or decedent's risk of developing cancer." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)

    …that the California Supreme Court has not yet determined whether an "every exposure" theory of liability is consistent with the substantial factor test that applies in asbestos cases. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion

    Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (2016)

    …nder 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."), with Quirin v…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · April 9, 2014 · in the opinion

    Hasenberg v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2014)

    …jurisdiction over WCD in Illinois, because WCD is a New Jersey corporation with a Connecticut principal place of business, WCD owns no property in Illinois, WCD has no offices in Illinois, WCD has no employees in…