12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion
District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)
…hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…
-
Exposure sites · District of Columbia
Washington DC Asbestos Exposure Sites: Worksites, Industries, and Trust Coverage
…General Hospital (Gallinger Municipal Hospital) Department of Agriculture buildings Forrestal Building George Washington University and Hospital Georgetown University Georgetown University Hospital Kennedy Center L'Enfant Plaza National Bureau of Standards Providence Hospital Rayburn House Office Building…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2013
Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2013)
…held that the earlier expert opinions, which spoke only of cumulative exposure, substantial contribution or general risk, did not show that the brake exposure alone was sufficient to cause the cancer. It said the new declaration…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · August 6, 2019 · in the opinion
Jackson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2019)
Those sources can be grouped into four general categories: (1) talc from Cashmere Bouquet containers purchased by law firms on the internet or at antique fairs; (2) talc from Cashmere Bouquet containers that had previously been…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · January 30, 1981
Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1981)
…Liberty), holding that coverage is triggered by exposure to asbestos, and denied Aetna's challenge to jurisdiction. Under occurrence-based general liability policies, coverage for asbestosis, mesothelioma and bronchogenic carcinoma is triggered by the claimant's…
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 7, 2004 · in the opinion
Washington Hospital Center v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (2004)
…Spagnoletti, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, and Edward E. Schwab, Acting Deputy Attorney General for the District of Columbia at the time the statement was filed, filed a statement in lieu of brief for…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · March 2, 2010 · in the opinion
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ray EX rel. Boyd (2010)
…mplicit in the design of the Rail Act is the premise that in personam claims, including general unsecured claims asserting successor liability, would not and could not follow the assets conveyed to Conrail pursuant to the…
-
State law · District of Columbia
Washington DC Mesothelioma Lawyer: Asbestos Claims, Deadlines & Compensation
…on workplace exposure. DC workers' compensation generally bars suing your own employer, and a general contractor can count as the employer of a subcontractor's workers. The asbestos case is usually against other companies, mainly the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion
Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · June 1, 1989 · in the opinion
Carey Canada Inc. v. California Union Ins. Co. (1989)
…Thus, the meaning of asbestosis was a matter of public record years before defendants' policies were sold. Numerous general circulation newspaper and magazine articles about the various asbestos-related health hazards, including articles in The New…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · April 30, 2015 · in the opinion
Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP (2015)
…which the alleged legal malpractice occurred — is terminated; consequently, "subsequent general representation of the plaintiffs regarding matters unrelated to the initial transaction does not warrant the application of the doctrine." De May v. Moore & Bruce, LLP…
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 6, 1997 · in the opinion
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel (1997)
…was rendered untimely by the enactment of Section 12-311. OCF acknowledges that "the general purpose underlying Section 12-311 was to expand the period of time in which plaintiffs could sue to recover for asbestos…