You are here
MDL875
Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required...
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted with respect to claims arising from alleged asbestos exposure occurring prior to May 19, 1980 because they are barred by the Alabama statute of limitations.
Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required...
Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the government contractor defense because Plaintiff identified a genuine dispute of material fact. Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticat...
Summary judgment in favor of defendant was denied on grounds of the sophisticated user defense because Defendant failed to identify evidence establishing that Plaintiff was a sophisticated user of the asbestos product at issue, as is required...
Summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant on grounds of insufficient product identification/causation evidence under maritime law.
Summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted with respect to strict product liability claims because a ship is not a product within the meaning of strict product liability law. With respect to the remaining negligence-based claims, summ...
The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court, as it involved numerous complicated and interrelated issues, some of which were unsettled issues of state law.
Defendant Warren could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from packing that was used with Warren pumps but were not manufactured or supplied by Warr...
Pages
