12 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · April 28, 1997
Mavroudis v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1997)
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Mavroudis plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. and affirmed the trial court's finding that the pretrial settlements were reasonable. In multi-supplier asbestos cases where the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · February 11, 2015 · in the opinion
McCROSSIN v. Imo Industries, Inc. (2015)
…alleges that the two contractors who performed work on the Trenton were nonparties Owens Corning Fiberglass ("Owens") and Unicor. Id., at 6. Lone Star further alleges that neither Owens nor Unicor supplied any products to Pioneer…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · March 9, 2023 · in the opinion
Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023)
…with maritime law, is that the plaintiff show "more than a casual or minimum contact with the product" to hold the defendant liable. Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. & Amchem Prod., 69 F.3d 712, 716 …
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · December 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008)
…product which because of a defect or unsafe use is itself unsafe); Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 618 So.2d 473 (La.Ct.App. 1993) (manufacturer is not liable for inadequate warnings regarding a product…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 2, 2014 · in the opinion
McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014)
…week ending September 6, 1970, it reported that "Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. arrived on the job under their contract to supply and install all piping and machinery insulation and to install boiler insulation." Dkt. 32-22…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 24, 2009 · in the opinion
Cashman v. Pacific Scientific Company (2009)
…is no reasonable inference that he removed and replaced the original asbestos insulation. The estate also points to certain documents obtained during discovery from the Selas Corporation.\[16\] One document refers to Owens-Corning Kaylo 20…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · July 16, 1992
Bowers v. Fibreboard Corporation (1992)
The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs (the Eldredge and Williams estates and Mrs. Eldredge) against Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois, finding no error in the jury instruction or the evidence rulings; Celotex…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (2011)
…COMPANY, INC.; LESLIE CONTROLS, INC.; THE LUNKENHEIMER COMPANY; METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, as successor-in-interest to SACOMO-SIERRA; PLANT INSULATION COMPANY; QUINTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.; RAPID AMERICAN…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · December 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Simonetta v. Viad Corporation (2008)
…388 (§ 388), a product manufacturer owes a duty to warn of hazards involved in the use of its product, which are known or should be known to the manufacturer and are not obvious to the user…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · September 8, 2015 · in the opinion
Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (2015)
…Virginia Leeper, The Gaitan Group, 3131 Elliott Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98121-1047, Counsel for Appellant(s). Thomas J. Owens, Attorney at Law, 1001 4th Ave. Ste. 4400, Seattle, WA, 98154-1192, Brian P. Barrow…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 5, 2021
Wineland v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021)
…factor, with evidence of the amount and duration of exposure. A manufacturer owes a duty to warn about third-party replacement parts only if its product requires the part to function as intended. Causation; Product Identification…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · April 3, 2017 · in the opinion
Woo v. General Electric Company (2017)
…Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, a manufacturer owes a duty to warn of hazards for the use of a product that are or should be known to a manufacturer. Simonetta, 165 Wn.2d at 348. …