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

Search

11 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”

  1. 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…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · March 23, 2021 · in the opinion

    McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021)

    …with the frequency, regularity, and proximity required by Lohrmann. First, Plaintiffs analogize the evidence in this matter to that in Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., (Pls.' Resp. (Doc. 146) at 22-23), a Fourth Circuit…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 22, 2018 · in the opinion

    Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018)

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

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · March 22, 2021 · in the opinion

    McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021)

    …Nov. 7, 2014). See, e.g., Haislip v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., No. 95-1687, 1996 WL 273686, at [\2] (4th Cir. May 23, 1996) (applying Lohrmann to North Carolina case involving a plaintiff with mesothelioma…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · May 18, 2020 · in the opinion

    Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020)

    …that product liable." See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying the threshold causation standard outlined in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 16, 2021 · in the opinion

    Vinson v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021)

    …is in accord with federal courts that have routinely reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Haislip v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 86 F.3d 1150 (table), 1996 WL 273686, at [\2] (4th Cir. May 23…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 16, 2021 · in the opinion

    Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)

    …is in accord with federal courts that have routinely reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Haislip v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 86 F.3d 1150 (table), 1996 WL 273686, at [\2] (4th Cir. May 23…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · October 26, 2020 · in the opinion

    Robertson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2020)

    …v. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc., 373 S.C. 179, 644 S.E.2d 724 (2007) (adopting the Lohrmann test for actionable exposure in South Carolina); Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 69…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…