12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 10, 2023 · in the opinion
Petro v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2023)
…COMPANY, AND PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY, FORT KENT HOLDINGS, INC., F.K/A DUNHAM BUSH, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, GARDNER DENVER, INC, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS, INC, GRINNELL LLC, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., F/K/A ALLIED SIGNAL…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 6, 2023 · in the opinion
McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2023)
…PUMP, PEERLESS PUMP AND NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORRPORATION, GARDNER DENVER, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GEORGE A. FULLER COMPANY, THE GERARD PACKING & BELTING CORP., GEROSA INCORPORATED, GOODYEAR CANADA INC., THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · February 5, 2018
Matter of Adesso v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2018)
…Brooklyn Navy Yard Brooklyn 1953-1957; boilermaker, truck mechanic, and general helper Thatcher Glass Elmira 1957-1996; fireman USS Des Moines 1957-1961; boiler maintenance mechanic Happauge School District 1976-1982; welder USS Mindoro 1948-1952…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · June 10, 1992 · in the opinion
In re Waterman SS Corp. (1992)
…F.2d 401, 403 (Fed.Cir.1986); Brooks, supra, 124 B.R. at 445; In re General Oil Distributors, Inc., 68 B.R. 603 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y. 1986). This is not to say § 1141…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 1, 2018 · in the opinion
Bucci v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2018)
…and right lungs, which has spread to his brain. He is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from approximately 1975 through the 1980s while employed as a general utility mechanic, mechanic B, and heavy equipment…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 13, 2017 · in the opinion
Brooks v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…to asbestos in the following manner: Ronald Brooks: (Living with Lung Cancer) Exposed to Asbestos while working as a construction worker, fireman, and during service as electrician's mate in the U.S. Navy, (1974-1989)…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 28, 2017 · in the opinion
American Home Assur. Co. v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ (2017)
…American Home Assurance Company (American Home) seeks declaratory relief to determine its rights and obligations under a general liability insurance policy issued to defendant The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the Port Authority…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · December 10, 1992 · in the opinion
In re Prudential Lines, Inc. (1992)
…however, that Asbestosis Claimants' position misconstrues the general rules of insurance law and contractual interpretation applicable here. At the most basic level, the P & I policies that PLI purchased were yearly contracts for indemnification for losses…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · October 1, 1996 · in the opinion
In re Waterman SS Corp. (1996)
…on MALC. An even more persuasive basis for placing the burden of proof on MALC is the general rule that when the true facts relating to a dispute are particularly within the knowledge of one party…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 29, 2007 · in the opinion
Aguirre v. Long Island Railroad Co. (2007)
…motion, the LIRR primarily argues that the plaintiffs failed at trial to proffer legally sufficient evidence to support their claims of general and specific causation with respect to their alleged exposure to asbestos and unidentified dusts…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 19, 2017 · in the opinion
Aquitato v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…Mass toxic tort cases, including asbestos cases, may be consolidated if they meet the requirements of the general rule governing consolidation of cases (In re Asbestos Litigation, 173 F.R.D.81, 38 Fed.R.Serv…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 16, 2007 · in the opinion
Aguirre v. Long IS. Rail RD. Co. (2007)
…motion, the LIRR primarily argues that the plaintiffs failed at trial to proffer legally sufficient evidence to support their claims of general and specific causation with respect to their alleged exposure to asbestos and unidentified dusts…