- Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation
- Organization: Ingersoll Rand Corporation
- Clear filters
6 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997
Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)
…reversed the judgment against Hopeman Brothers. It otherwise affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Anchor and Owens-Corning. The Maryland cap on noneconomic damages applies to asbestos wrongful death claims arising after October 1, 1994…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · March 23, 1993
Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd. (1993)
Maurice Moline, a retired seaman, sued several shipowners over his exposure to asbestos while working on their ships. After he died of mesothelioma in 1989, his estate's administrator continued the case under the Jones Act and general maritime law.…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · March 19, 1997
Potter v. Patterson (1997)
The widow and children of John Potter sued Mine Safety Appliances (MSA) and many other companies and individuals. They alleged he died of mesothelioma from asbestos exposure over many years of work for NOPSI. The plaintiffs settled with MSA alone…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 2, 2003 · in the opinion
Lindstrom v. AC Products Liability Trust (2003)
…that he has suffered damages, and 3) prove that defendant's asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in causing his damages. Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 726 F.Supp. 172, 174 (W.D.Mich…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · December 29, 2009 · in the opinion
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2009)
…to the Cross-Defendants' products than to Scapa's products, and that the jury's verdict is therefore inconsistent and warrants a JNOV.\[5\] As the Court of Appeals explained in Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 2, 2010 · in the opinion
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (2010)
…to the Cross-Defendants' products than to Scapa's products, and that the jury's verdict is therefore inconsistent and warrants a JNOV.\[5\] As the Court of Appeals explained in Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v…