123 results for “General Electric”, page 3 of 7
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · January 30, 2004
Roca v. EI du Pont de Nemours and Co. (2004)
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DuPont, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Rhone-Poulenc, holding that Roca waived his Section 343 claim by not raising it in his opening brief. An…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 24, 2019
Rowland v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…Worksites: home renovation projects; Plastolite; General Motors homeowner assisting with home renovation clean-up home renovation projects 1972-1976; launderer of her husband's work clothing Plastolite; launderer of her father's work clothing General Motors
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · September 29, 2009
In re WR Grace & Co. (2009)
The State of California, Department of General Services, filed sixteen property damage claims in W.R. Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The claims concerned asbestos-containing materials Grace made that were in sixteen state-owned buildings…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · May 9, 2006
In re Asbestos Litigation (2006)
The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs' experts on general causation, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify that automotive friction products increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Under…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 19, 2019
Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (2019)
…facts supporting successor liability or punitive damages. A plaintiff asserting successor liability must plead facts plausibly falling within an exception to the general rule that an asset purchaser is not liable for the seller's debts…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · December 12, 2018
Call v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…plaintiff Marilyn Kay Call, holding Indiana's "but for" causation standard applies and her expert's opinion did not meet it. Indiana's general negligence "but for" causation standard applies to asbestos cases, so a substantial…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · October 27, 2017
Walsh v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…law, a plaintiff must show exposure to the defendant's product and that it was a substantial factor in causing the injury; general testimony about replacement parts, without evidence they were made by the defendant, does…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · March 24, 2014
Mine Safety Appliances Company v. Aiu Insurance Company (2014)
…it applies. It applies only if the insured was substantially certain that a known failure of its product would cause the plaintiff's injury, not merely aware of general disease hazards. Choice of Law; Insurance Coverage;…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · December 22, 2006
Hudson v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation Hudson Trial Group, 2006)
…for hazards faced by an independent contractor's employee unless it actively controlled the manner and method of the work, and general superintendence is not enough. DP&L did not actively control the work at Edgemoor…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · April 18, 2016
Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec (2016)
…8 Del. C. §§ 371 and 376) provide a means of serving process and do not constitute consent to general jurisdiction; after Daimler, jurisdiction over a registered foreign corporation must satisfy due process. Personal Jurisdiction; Venue, Removal…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · November 29, 2017
Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The court found the Walshes' evidence did not support that inference and that they were stretching general testimony about replacement parts. Because they bore the burden of proof…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · February 13, 2019
Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
…law, a plaintiff must show exposure to each defendant's product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A general recollection of a manufacturer's name, with no detail on where…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 30, 2020 · in the opinion
Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
Pruitt perform general maintenance on these pumps every one to two months, which required removing and replacing gaskets and packing material. (Id.) Mr. Dumas further testified that Mr. Pruitt's maintenance work took two to three…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · September 12, 2016 · in the opinion
In re Viking Pump, Inc. (2016)
As a general principle, a clause restricting assignment does not in any way limit the policyholder's power to make an assignment of the rights under the policy — consisting of the right to receive the proceeds…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 30, 2012 · in the opinion
In re WR Grace & Co. (2012)
\[131\] There are two exceptions to the general rule that would allow creditors to proceed against the debtor for the post-petition interest: (1) when a creditor is oversecured under § 506(b); and (2) under § 726…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · June 11, 2012 · in the opinion
In re WR Grace & Co. (2012)
Moreover, the General Growth Properties Court relied on several equitable considerations in arriving at its decision, including that the default rate would not constitute a "penalty" to the "exceedingly solvent" debtor, a lack of misconduct, and…
-
Court case · Delaware Court of Chancery · October 14, 2009 · in the opinion
Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemnity Company (2009)
§ 35:7 (noting that the "the great majority of courts adhere to the rule that general stipulations in policies prohibiting assignments thereof except with the consent of the insurer apply only to assignments before loss, and…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019)
51, 51-52 (2008) ("Beyond general and specific causation, an additional causation issue arises when multiple defendants are responsible for exposing the plaintiff to a harmful substance. The most common example is a plaintiff who contracts…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 11, 2011 · in the opinion
Price v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2011)
…who merely omits to act... in general are confined to situations where there is a special relation between the actor and the other which gives rise to the duty."). \[25\] See RESTATEMENT § 314A (listing common carriers…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · January 11, 2011
Farrall v. Atlas Turner (In re Asbestos Litigation Limited TO Farrall, 2011)
…holding the 1982 release barred James Farrall's new mesothelioma claims; the plaintiffs lost. A clear and unambiguous general release covering known and unknown, unmanifested injuries from asbestos exposure bars a later suit for a long…