53 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”, page 3 of 3
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 30, 2014 · in the opinion
Barnes v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (2014)
…Goulds Pump Inc., Ingersoll Rand Company Limited, and Owens Illinois Incorporated alleging that he continually worked with, used, handled and was caused to come in contact with Defendants' asbestos-containing products and the asbestos dust and…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · July 31, 1985
Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec v. Am. Home Assur. Co. (1985)
…injury or property damage that appears years after exposure or installation, and whether each triggered insurer owes the full loss or only a prorated share. It found the policy language ambiguous and construed it in favor…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey · September 9, 2016 · in the opinion
In re GI Holdings, Inc. (2016)
It is the independent duty which the wrongdoer owes to prevent the other from becoming vicariously liable, and cast in damages, to the injured party that is the predicate for the indemnity action\[,\] and it is…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 26, 2015
Hammell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015)
…because of disputed facts. Under maritime law, a manufacturer is not liable for, and owes no duty to warn about, asbestos-containing parts it did not manufacture or supply, and a plaintiff must show exposure to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 24, 2015
Shearer v. AW Chesterton Company (2015)
…which governed work aboard a dry-docked Navy ship, a manufacturer owes no duty to warn about asbestos products it neither made nor distributed, so a turbine maker is not liable for insulation applied after the…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · September 4, 2013
Barile v. 3M Company, Inc. (2013)
…made by others. A landowner owes no duty to protect an independent contractor's workers from hazards inherent in the contracted work unless it controls the means and methods of that work. Statute of Repose; Failure…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · October 11, 1988 · in the opinion
US v. Tzavah Urban Renewal Corp. (1988)
…and (3) that specific requirements of the regulations have been violated. Ben's Truck, 25 E.R.C. at 1295. Any person who "owns, leases, operates, controls or supervises a stationary source" is liable as an…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · August 17, 2009 · in the opinion
In re Congoleum Corporation (2009)
…Litigation Congoleum is a manufacturer of floor tile and other products based in Mercerville, New Jersey. The company owns and operates four plants, two of which are located in New Jersey, and employs approximately 600 employees…
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · July 31, 1986 · in the opinion
Fischer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)
…defective products in a manner analogous to negligence per se. \[Owen, "Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation," 74 Mich.L.Rev. 1257, 1269 (1976) (footnotes omitted) (hereinafter Owen I).\] We have previously held that a defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · August 17, 2009 · in the opinion
In re Congoleum Corp. (2009)
…Litigation Congoleum is a manufacturer of floor tile and other products based in Mercerville, New Jersey. The company owns and operates four plants, two of which are located in New Jersey, and employs approximately 600 employees…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey · February 25, 2022 · in the opinion
In re Ltl Management, LLC (2022)
…North Carolina limited liability company, Royalty A&M LLC ("Royalty A&M"), which owns a portfolio of royalty revenue streams, including royalty revenue streams based on third-party sales of LACTAID®, MYLANTA®/MYLICON® and ROGAINE® products…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey · August 12, 2014 · in the opinion
In re GI Holdings, Inc. (2014)
…therefore conclude that plaintiff has a claim against defendant within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), and that defendant owes plaintiff a debt within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(11).
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · September 30, 2019 · in the opinion
In re Duro Dyne National Corp. (2019)
…court to solicit and consider additional nominees on its own initiative after one has been proposed. A bankruptcy court, however, owes no deference to the debtor's—or any other party's— nominee. See, e.g.…