Sheet1 - Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Document Sample
Sheet1 - Eastern District of Pennsylvania Powered By Docstoc
					                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

      A            B             C              D               E                       F             G
  Jurisdicti                                                                                     Disposi-
1 on         Hearing Date Case           Defendant(s)     Motion Type   Issue(s)                 tion




                        Happel v.
                        Anchor Packing
                        Co., et al., 09- Foster Wheeler,
2 Del.        10/5/2010 70113            LLC             MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Happel v.
                        Anchor Packing
                        Co., et al., 09- Ingersoll-Rand
3 Del.        10/5/2010 70113            Co.              MSJ           Product Identification   Denied




                        Happel v.
                        Anchor Packing
                        Co., et al., 09-
4 Del.        10/5/2010 70113            Yarway Corp.     MSJ           Product Identification   Denied




                                                                    1
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

         A      B               C                  D               E                       F           G




                       Happel v.
                       Anchor Packing
                       Co., et al., 09-
5 Del.       10/5/2010 70113            CBS Corp.            MSJ           Product Identification   Denied




                       Happel v.
                       Anchor Packing
                       Co., et al., 09-     General Electric
6 Del.       10/5/2010 70113                Co.              MSJ           Product Identification   Granted
                       Bielski, et al. v.
                       Asbestos Corp.
                       Ltd., et al., 07-
                       63404, 07-           Asbestos Corp.,
7 N.J.       10/5/2010 63324                Ltd.            MSJ            Product Identification   Denied




                       Losito v.
                       Benjamin
                       Foster Co., et       Buffalo Pumps,
8 N.J.       10/5/2010 al., 09-80051        Inc.             MSJ           Product Identification   Granted


                       Losito v.
                       Benjamin
                       Foster Co., et
9 N.J.       10/5/2010 al., 09-80051        CBS Corp.        MSJ           Product Identification   Granted


                                                                       2
                                                           MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B              C              D               E                       F           G




                        Losito v.
                        Benjamin
                        Foster Co., et   Warren Pumps,
10 N.J.       10/5/2010 al., 09-80051    LLC           MSJ             Product Identification   Granted




                        Bloom, et al. v.
                        Garlock, Inc., et
11 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63073 Thiem Corp.       MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Bloom, et al. v.
                        Garlock, Inc., et
12 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63073 Foseco, Inc.      MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Bloom, et al. v.
                        Garlock, Inc., et Oglebay Norton
13 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63073 Co.                MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                        Bloom, et al. v.
                        Garlock, Inc., et
14 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63073 Beazer East, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                   3
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B              C                D               E                       F           G




                        Killmeyer v.
                        Garlock, Inc., et
15 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63069     Power Piping Co. MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et Oglebay Norton
16 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Co.            MSJ              Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et
17 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Eichleay Corp.   MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et Hunter Sales
18 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Corp.            MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                     4
                                                              MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B              C                D                E                       F           G




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et Hedman Mines,
19 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Ltd.          MSJ                Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et
20 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Honeywell, Inc.    MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et
21 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Foseco, Inc.       MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et M.S. Jacobs &
22 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Associates, Inc.   MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                                                                      5
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B              C                D               E                       F           G




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et Allied Glove
23 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Corp.            MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et
24 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Beazer East, Inc. MSJ           Product Identification   Granted




                        Weidner v.
                        United Mineral
                        Products Co., et
25 W.D. Pa.   10/5/2010 al., 07-63072    Thiem Corp.      MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                     6
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

      A         B                C                D                E                       F                 G




                       McElhone v.
                       Beazer East,
                       Inc., et al., 07-
                       63082 (W.D.
26 Fed.      11/2/2010 Pa.)                Beazer East, Inc. MSJ           Government Contractor Defense Denied




                       Brown v. A-
                       Best Products
   N.D.W.              Co., et al., 07-    IU North
27 Va.       11/2/2010 63017               America, Inc.    MSJ            Product Identification         Granted




                       Anderson, et
                       al., v.
                       Saberhagen                                          Duty of Care Owed by General
   W.D.                Holdings, Inc., Lockheed                            Contractors to Employees of
28 Wash.    11/17/2010 et al., 10-61118 Shipbuilding Co. MSJ               Subcontractors                 Denied




                                                                       7
                                                           MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B               C                 D           E                       F              G




                        Modley v. 20th
   S.D. W.              Centry Glove
29 Va.       11/17/2010 Corp., 07-62874 Crane Co.        MSJ           Product Identification      Denied




                        Cowley, et al. v.
                        AC&S, Inc., et                                 F.R.E. 804(b)(1); Product
30 Fed.       12/7/2010 al., 07-62831     MCIC, Inc.     MSJ           Identification (Md.)        Granted




                        Street, et al. v.
                        AC&S, Inc., et
31 Md.        12/7/2010 al., 07-62599       MCIC, Inc.   MSJ           Product Identification      Granted




                                                                   8
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

       A           B               C               D               E                       F                 G




                                             Dana
                          Buttars v. Atlas   Companies, LLC;
                          Turner, Inc., et   Maremount
                          al., 09-63422      Corp.; Pneumo                 Motion to Strike pursuant to
32 Fed.        12/14/2010 (Idaho)            Abex, LLC       MSJ           sham affidavit doctrine        Granted




                          Odom, et al. v.
                          Allis-Chalmers
                          Co., et al., 09-   Goulds Pumps,
33 N.D. Fla.   12/14/2010 69594              Inc.            MSJ           Product Identification         Granted




                                                                       9
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

       A           B               C                  D               E                        F                      G




                          Ward v. Allis-
                          Chalmers
                          Pumps, Inc., et     Ingersoll-Rand                   F.R.E. 804(b)(1); Product
34 N.D. Fla.   12/14/2010 al., 09-80030       Co.               MSJ            Identification                    Granted




                          Ward v. Allis-
                          Chalmers            E.I. du Pont de
                          Pumps, Inc., et     Nemours and                      F.R.E. 804(b)(1); Product
35 N.D. Fla.   12/14/2010 al., 09-80030       Co.               MSJ            Identification                    Granted




                          Talbot, et al. v.   Geuine Parts
                          Allied Signal,      Co. and National
                          Inc., et al., 09-   Automotive                       Product Identification; Conflict of
36 S.D. Fla.   12/14/2010 70499               Parts Association MSJ            laws analysis                       Denied




                                                                          10
                                                              MDL-875 Decisions

          A       B               C                D              E                        F           G


                         Buttars v. Atlas
                         Turner, Inc., et Maremount
37 Idaho      12/14/2010 al., 09-63422    Corp.             MSJ            Product Identification   Granted


                         Buttars v. Atlas
                         Turner, Inc., et Dana
38 Idaho      12/14/2010 al., 09-63422    Companies, LLC MSJ               Product Identification   Granted


                         Buttars v. Atlas
                         Turner, Inc., et Pneumo Abex
39 Idaho      12/14/2010 al., 09-63422    LLC               MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                         Archer, et al. v. Albany
                         Mead Corp., et International
40 Ala.        1/11/2011 al., 09-70093     Corp.            MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                         Riggs v. Mead Albany
                         Corp., et al., 09- International
41 Ala.        1/11/2011 70094              Corp.           MSJ            Product Identification   Granted


                                                                      11
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B              C               D                E                        F                    G




                        McGuffie, et al. Albany
                        v. Mead Corp., International
42 Ala.       1/11/2011 et al., 09-70095 Corp.            MSJ             Product Identification            Granted




                        Pease, et al. v.
                        A.W.
                        Chesterton Co.,
43 Del.       1/11/2011 et al., 09-62581 Crane Co.        MSJ             Product Identification            Denied


                        Bearce, et al. v.
                        General
                        Dynamics                                          Whether Plaintiff's claims were
   N.D.                 Corp., et al., 07- General                        barred under Texas' Workmens
44 Tex.       1/11/2011 69238              Dynamics Corp. MSJ             Compensation Act                  Denied




                        Albertson, et
                        al. v. National
                        Industries Inc., Bayer                            Sham Affidavit Doctrine; Product
45 Fed.       1/25/2011 et al., 07-63761 Cropscience, Inc. MSJ            Identification (S.C.)            Granted


                                                                     12
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

         A      B                C                 D            E                        F                   G




                       McDaniell, et
                       al. v. Owens-
                       Illinois, Inc., et
                       al., 07-61225                                     Sham Affidavit Doctrine; Product
46 Fed.      1/25/2011 (S.C.)               Crane Co.    MSJ             Identification (S.C.)            Granted

                                         Travelers
                                         Indemnity Co.,
                                         American
                       Becnel, et al. v. Motorists
                       Anco              Insurance Co.,
                       Insulations,      and Commercial                  Whether the LHWCA preempts
                       Inc., et al., 08- Union Insurance                 the Louisiana's Workers'
47 La.       1/25/2011 84556             Co.             MSJ             Compensation Act?               Granted




                       Walker v.
                       Owens-Illinois AVCO Corp. and
                       Glass Co., et al., Cessna Aircraft
48 Md.       1/25/2011 07-62843           Co.             MSJ            Product Identification          Denied




                                                                    13
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B              C                 D              E                        F                 G


                                          Fluor Daniel
                                          Services Corp.,
                        Blanks, et al. v. Daniel
                        Pittsburgh        International
                        Corning Corp., Corp., and Fluor
49 S.C.       1/25/2011 et al., 07-60925 Enterprises, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification         Denied


                        Blanks, et al. v.
                        Pittsburgh
                        Corning Corp., Goulds Pumps,
50 S.C.       1/25/2011 et al., 07-60925 Inc.              MSJ            Product Identification         Granted


                        Blanks, et al. v.
                        Pittsburgh        Sterling Fluid
                        Corning Corp., Systems (USA),
51 S.C.       1/25/2011 et al., 07-60925 LLC               MSJ            Product Identification         Granted

                        Johnson, et al.
                        v. Aventis
                        Cropscience
                        USA, Inc., et al.,                                Product Identification; Bare
52 S.C.       1/25/2011 07-61223           Crane Co.       MSJ            Metal Defense                  Denied


                        Johnson, et al.
                        v. Aventis
                        Cropscience
                        USA, Inc., et al.,
53 S.C.       1/25/2011 07-61223           Dana Corp.      MSJ            Product Identification         Granted


                                                                     14
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B                C                D                E                        F                 G




                        Small, et al. v.
                        Owens-Illinois,
                        Inc., et al., 07-                                    Product Identification; sham
54 S.C.       1/25/2011 61174               Dana Corp.       MSJ             affidavit doctrine (Fed.)      Denied


                                            Fluor Daniel
                                            Services Corp.,
                        Small, et al. v.    Daniel
                        Owens-Illinois,     International
                        Inc., et al., 07-   Corp., and Fluor
55 S.C.       1/25/2011 61174               Enterprises, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification         Granted


                        Blackmon, et
                        al. v. Owens-
                        Illinois Inc., et                                    Product Identification; Bare
56 S.C.       1/25/2011 al., 07-62975       Crane Co.        MSJ             Metal Defense                  Denied


                        Campbell v.
                        Owens-Illinois
                        Inc., et al., 07-   Bayer
57 S.C.       1/25/2011 63763               Cropscience, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification         Granted




                                                                        15
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B                C                D                E                        F                    G

                                            Fluor Daniel
                                            Services Corp.,
                                            Daniel
                                            International
                                            Corp., Fluor
                                            Enterprises,
                                            Inc., and
                        Christian v.        Strategic
                        Owens-Illinois      Organizational
                        Inc., et al., 07-   Systems
58 S.C.       1/25/2011 61187               Enterprises, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification            Denied


                        Fritz v. Bayer
                        Cropscience,                                         Product Identification; Bare
                        Inc., et al., 07-                                    Metal Defense; Conflict of laws
59 S.C.       1/25/2011 65982               Crane Co.        MSJ             analysis                          Denied




                        Jirel v. AC&S,
                        Inc., et al., 07-
60 S.C.       1/25/2011 61116               Noland Co., Inc. MSJ             Product Identification            Granted


                        Smoak v.
                        Owens-Illinois,
                        Inc., et al., 07-   Bayer
61 S.C.       1/25/2011 61217               Cropscience, Inc. MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                                                                        16
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

      A      B              C                  D                E                        F           G

                    Anderson v.
                    Hamilton
                    Materials, et      Georgia-Pacific
62 Utah   1/25/2011 al., 09-80103      LLC                MSJ            Product Identification   Denied




                    Anderson v.
                    Hamilton
                    Materials, et
63 Utah   1/25/2011 al., 09-80103      Rapid- American MSJ               Product Identification   Granted




                    Bludworth v.
                    Illinois Central
                    Railroad Co.,
                    10-68527 (S.D.     Illinois Central
64 Fed.    2/8/2011 Ill.)              Railroad Co.       MSJ            FELA Release             Denied




                    Maynor v.
                    Illinois Central
                    Railroad Co.,
                    08-89466 (S.D.     Illinois Central
65 Fed.    2/8/2011 Ill.)              Railroad Co.       MSJ            FELA Release             Denied




                                                                    17
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

      A       B              C                  D                E                        F                     G




                     Robinson v.                                                                           Motion
                     Illinois Central                                                                      for Partial
                     Railroad Co.,                                                                         Summary
                     08-89339 (S.D.     Illinois Central                                                   Judgment
66 Fed.     2/8/2011 Ill.)              Railroad Co.       MSJ            FELA Statute of Limitations      Granted




                     Delatte, et al. v.
                     A.W.                                                 Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                     Chesterton Co.,                                      Identification under Maritime
   Mari-             et al., 09-69578                                     Law; Bare Metal Defense under
67 time    2/22/2011 (N.D. Fla.)        CBS Corp.          MSJ            Maritime Law                     Granted




                     Delatte, et al. v.
                     A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,                                      Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
   Mari-             et al., 09-69578 IMO Industries,                     Identification under Maritime
68 time    2/22/2011 (N.D. Fla.)        Inc.               MSJ            Law                              Granted




                                                                     18
                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

      A       B             C               D              E                       F                    G




                     Delatte, et al. v.
                     A.W.                                           Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                     Chesterton Co.,                                Identification under Maritime
   Mari-             et al., 09-69578 Warren Pumps,                 Law; Bare Metal Defense under
69 time    2/22/2011 (N.D. Fla.)        LLC         MSJ             Maritime Law                     Granted




                     Ferguson, et al.
                     v. Lorillard                                   Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                     Tobacco Co.,                                   Identification under Maritime
   Mari-             Inc., 09-91161 General Electric                Law; Bare Metal Defense under
70 time    2/22/2011 (N.D. Oh.)       Co.            MSJ            Maritime Law                     Granted




                     Ferguson, et al.
                     v. Lorillard                                   Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                     Tobacco Co.,                                   Identification under Maritime
   Mari-             Inc., 09-91161 Ingersoll-Rand                  Law; Bare Metal Defense under
71 time    2/22/2011 (N.D. Oh.)       Co.            MSJ            Maritime Law                     Granted




                                                               19
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

       A          B              C               D              E                       F                    G




                         Ferguson, et al.
                         v. Lorillard                                    Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                         Tobacco Co.,                                    Identification under Maritime
   Mari-                 Inc., 09-91161 IMO Industries,                  Law; Bare Metal Defense under
72 time        2/22/2011 (N.D. Oh.)       Inc.            MSJ            Maritime Law                     Granted




                         Ferguson, et al.
                         v. Lorillard                                    Maritime Jurisdiction; Product
                         Tobacco Co.,                                    Identification under Maritime
   Mari-                 Inc., 09-91161                                  Law; Bare Metal Defense under
73 time        2/22/2011 (N.D. Oh.)       Viad Corp.      MSJ            Maritime Law                     Granted




                         Malpass, et al.
                         v. Armstrong
                         World
                         Industries, et    Pneumo Abex
74 E.D.N. C.   2/22/2011 al., 06-68065     LLC            MSJ            Statute of Repose                Denied




                                                                    20
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B             C                D               E                        F           G




                        Brackett, et al.
   W.D.N.C              v. Abex Corp., Pneumo Abex
75 .          2/22/2011 et al., 06-69211 LLC              MSJ            Statute of Repose        Denied




                        Ferguson, et al.
                        v. Lorillard
                        Tobacco Co.,
76 N.D. Oh.   2/22/2011 Inc., 09-91161 Crane Co.          MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Ferguson, et al.
                        v. Lorillard     Trane US Inc.
                        Tobacco Co.,     f/k/a American
77 N.D. Oh.   2/22/2011 Inc., 09-91161 Standard, Inc.     MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                    21
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

      A          B              C                  D             E                        F                G




                                           Lorillard
                        Ferguson, et al.   Tobacco Co.,                                                Denied in
                        v. Lorillard       Inc. and                                                    part and
                        Tobacco Co.,       Hollingsworth &                                             granted
78 N.D. Oh.   2/22/2011 Inc., 09-91161     Vose Co.        MSJ            Product Identification       in part




                        Ferguson, et al.
                        v. Lorillard
                        Tobacco Co.,
79 N.D. Oh.   2/22/2011 Inc., 09-91161 Plaintiff          MSJ             Liability of Non-Defedants   Denied




                                                                     22
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

          A      B              C                  D               E                           F        G




                        Sowizral, et al.   Triple A in the
                        v. Triple A in     USA, Inc. and
                        the USA, Inc.,     Salvatore
80 S.D. Oh.   2/22/2011 et al., 09-74696   Fasciana          MSJ            Intentional tort         Granted




                        Corbin, et al. v.
                        Owens-Corning
                        Fiberglas Corp., Owens-Illinois,
81 S.C.       2/22/2011 et al., 07-61540 Inc.                MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                        Powers v. F W
                        Webb Co., et       Foster Wheeler,
82 Me.         3/8/2011 al., 09-80033      LLC             MSJ              Product Identification   Granted




                                                                       23
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

       A          B              C               D              E                        F               G




                         Kiser v. A.W.
                         Chesteron Co., Various                          Motion to Dismiss based on
83 W.D. Va.     3/8/2011 et al., 11-60039 Defendants      MSJ            Statute of Limitations       Granted




                         Prange v. A.W.
                         Chesterton Co., Cytec
                         et al.,         Engineered
84 C.D. Cal.   3/22/2011 09-91848        Material, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification       Denied




                                                                    24
                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

      A       B             C               D              E                        F                    G




                                                                                                    Granted
                                                                                                    in
                                                                                                    Conner,
                                                                                                    Prange,
                                                                                                    and Stone
                                                                                                    as
                                                                                                    maritime
                                                                                                    law
                     Conner (09-                                                                    applied in
                     67099 (C.D.                                                                    those
                     Cal.)), Prange,                                                                cases;
                     (09-91848 (C.D.                                                                Denied in
                     Cal.)), Stone,                                                                 Willis as
                     (09-93726 (S.D.                                                                maritime
                     Cal.)), Willis,                                                                jurisidictio
   Mari-             (09-91449       Various                                                        n was
85 time    3/22/2011 (D.S.C.))       Defendants      MSJ            Applicability of Maritime Law   improper

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. Buffalo Pumps,
86 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Inc.            MSJ            Product Identification          Denied

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D.
87 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Crane Co.       MSJ            Product Identification          Denied




                                                               25
                                                        MDL-875 Decisions

      A       B             C               D               E                        F           G

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. Foster
88 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Wheeler,LLC      MSJ            Product Identification   Denied

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. General Electric
89 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Co.             MSJ             Product Identification   Denied

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. IMO Industries,
90 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Inc.             MSJ            Product Identification   Denied

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,         Trane US, Inc.
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. f/k/a American
91 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           Standard, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification   Denied

                     Prange v. A.W.
                     Chesterton Co.,
                     et al.,
   Mari-             09-91848 (C.D. Warren Pumps,
92 time    3/22/2011 Cal.)           LLC          MSJ                Product Identification   Denied




                                                                26
                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

      A     B              C                    D          E                       F                    G




                                                                    Duty of Care Owed by Premises
                   Wagers v. SGL                                    Owner to an Independent
                   Carbon, LLC, 10-                                 Contractor and the Employees of
93 N.C.   4/5/2011 02916            SGL Carbon LLC   MSJ            that Independent Contractor     Denied
                                                                                                    Granted
                                                                                                    in part
                   Wagers v. SGL                                    Motion for Summary Judgment and
                   Carbon, LLC, 10-                                 as to Defendant's Affirmative   denied in
94 N.C.   4/5/2011 02916            Plaintiff        MSJ            Defenses                        part




                                                               27
                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

      A      B              C                D             E                        F                    G




                    Anderson, et al.
                    v. Ford Motor
                    Co., et al., 09-
95 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            Carrier Corp.   MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                    Anderson, et al.
                    v. Ford Motor York
                    Co., et al., 09- International                  Product Identification; Leading
96 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            Corp.           MSJ            Questions                         Denied

                    Anderson, et al.
                    v. Ford Motor
                    Co., et al., 09- Cleaver-Brooks,
97 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            Inc.            MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                                                               28
                                                         MDL-875 Decisions

       A      B             C                 D              E                        F                    G


                     Anderson, et al.
                     v. Ford Motor
                     Co., et al., 09-
98 Utah    4/26/2011 69122            Flowserve Corp. MSJ             Product Identification            Denied

                     Anderson, et al.
                     v. Ford Motor
                     Co., et al., 09- Zurn Industries,
99 Utah    4/26/2011 69122            LLC              MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                     Anderson, et al.
                     v. Ford Motor
                     Co., et al., 09-                                 Product Identification; Leading
100 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            SEPCO           MSJ             Questions                         Denied




                                                                 29
                                                         MDL-875 Decisions

       A      B             C                D               E                        F                    G




                     Anderson, et al.
                     v. Ford Motor Trane US Inc.
                     Co., et al., 09- f/k/a American                  Collateral estoppel; Product
101 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            Standard, Inc.   MSJ            Identification                    Granted




                     Anderson, et al.
                     v. Ford Motor
                     Co., et al., 09- Goulds Pumps,                   Product Identification; Leading
102 Utah   4/26/2011 69122            Inc.             MSJ            Questions                         Denied




                                                                 30
                                                         MDL-875 Decisions

       A       B               C                D            E                         F                    G




                                                                                                        Granted
                      Anderson, et al.                                                                  in part
                      v. Ford Motor                                                                     and
                      Co., et al., 09-                                Product Identification; Leading   denied in
103 Utah    4/26/2011 69122            Crane Co.       MSJ            Questions                         part




                      Bunnell v.
                      Metropolitan
                      Life Insurance                                  Statute of Limitations; Civil
    S.D.              Co., et al., 08-   Certainteed                  Conspiracy; Product
104 Miss.   5/17/2011 85610              Corp.         MSJ            Identification                    Granted




                                                                 31
                                                           MDL-875 Decisions

       A      B               C               D                E                        F                      G

                                      General Electric
                                      Co., Ford Motor
                     Burrell v.       Co., Foster
                     Minnesota        Wheeler LLC,
                     Mining           FMC Corp.,
                     Manufacturing Sterling Fluid
                     Co., et al., 08- Systems (USA),                    F.R.C.P. 56(c)(1)(A); Failure to
                     87293 (N.D.      LLC, and Crane                    submit declarations or affidavits
105 Fed.   5/31/2011 Miss.)           Co.              MSJ              with expert reports                 Granted


                     Hanson v.
                     ACANDS, Inc.,
                     et al., 09-66701 General Electric
106 Fed.   6/12/2011 (D.N.D.)         Co.              MSJ              Government Contractor Defense Granted




                     Golade v.
                     ACANDS, Inc.,     Foster Wheeler,
107 N.D.   6/12/2011 09-68096          Corp.           MSJ              Product Identification              Granted




                     Huelsman v.
                     AP.I., Inc., et
108 N.D.   6/12/2011 al., 09-66602     S.O.S. Products   MSJ            Product Identification              Granted




                                                                   32
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

       A      B               C                D                E                        F           G




                     Jeffries v.
                     ACANDS, Inc.,     Foster Wheeler,
109 N.D.   6/12/2011 09-68104          Corp.           MSJ               Product Identification   Granted




                     Lantz v. AP.I.,
                     Inc., et al.,2:09-
110 N.D.   6/12/2011 66690              S.O.S. Products   MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                     Miller v.
                     ACANDS, Inc.,     Foster Wheeler,
111 N.D.   6/12/2011 09-68111          Corp.           MSJ               Product Identification   Granted




                     O'Shea v.
                     ACANDS, Inc.,     Foster Wheeler,
112 N.D.   6/12/2011 09-68113          Corp.           MSJ               Product Identification   Granted




                                                                    33
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C               D                E                        F                     G




                          Wallace v.
                          ACANDS, Inc.,    Foster Wheeler,
113 N.D.        6/12/2011 09-68112         Corp.           MSJ              Product Identification            Granted




                                                                                                              Granted
                          Brown v.                                                                            in part
                          Asbestos                                                                            and
                          Defendants, et   Goodyear Tire &                                                    denied in
114 N.D. Cal.   6/21/2011 al., 10-60090    Rubber Co.      MSJ              Product Identification            part




                          Pendergast v.
                          American
                          Optical Corp.,                                    Product Identification; Leading
115 M.D. Fla.   6/21/2011 et al., 10-68061 Honeywell, Inc.   MSJ            Questions                         Denied




                                                                       34
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C               D             E                        F           G




                          Pendergast v.
                          American
                          Optical Corp., Sherwin-
116 M.D. Fla.   6/21/2011 et al., 10-68061 Williams Co.   MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                          Pendergast v.
                          American
                          Optical Corp., Union Carbide
117 M.D. Fla.   6/21/2011 et al., 10-68061 Corp.          MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                    35
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C                D                E                        F                     G




                                                                                                               Granted
                          Pendergast v.                                                                        in part
                          American                                                                             and
                          Optical Corp., Western Auto                        Product Identification; Leading   denied in
118 M.D. Fla.   6/21/2011 et al., 10-68061 Supply Co.         MSJ            Questions                         part




                          Tafoya v. AC
                          Delco Auto
                          Service Center,
                          Inc., et al., 10- Borg-Warner
119 Nev.        6/21/2011 61138             Morse Tec, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification            Denied




                                                                        36
                                                           MDL-875 Decisions

       A      B              C                D                E                        F            G




                     Tafoya v. AC
                     Delco Auto
                     Service Center, Meyer’s
                     Inc., et al., 10- Western Auto
120 Nev.   6/21/2011 61138             Parts, Inc.       MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                     Tafoya v. AC                                                                Granted
                     Delco Auto                                                                  in part
                     Service Center,                                                             and
                     Inc., et al., 10-                                                           denied in
121 Nev.   6/21/2011 61138             Honeywell, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification   part




                                                                   37
                                                              MDL-875 Decisions

       A         B              C                 D               E                        F                   G




                        Tafoya v. AC
                        Delco Auto
                        Service Center, Volkswagen
                        Inc., et al., 10- Group of                         Failure to warn; Product
122 Nev.      6/21/2011 61138             America, Inc.     MSJ            Identification                   Granted

    Maritim
    e Law               Tyler v. A.W.                                      Product Identification; Use of
    (DC                 Chesterton, et                                     expert testimony to establish
123 case)     6/24/2011 al., 10-67426     Foster Wheeler    MSJ            exposure                         Granted


    VA/Mari
    time                Tyler v. A.W.
    (DC                 Chesterton, et
124 case)     6/24/2011 al., 10-67422     Elliot Co.        MSJ            Product Identification           Granted


                        Tyler v. A.W.
    VA (DC              Chesterton, et
125 case)     6/24/2011 al., 10-67423     Honeywell, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification           Denied
    VA/Mari
    time                Tyler v. A.W.
    (DC                 Chesterton, et    IMO Industries,
126 case)     6/24/2011 al., 10-67424     Inc.              MSJ            Product Identification           Granted




                                                                      38
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

       A         B              C                  D                E                         F                     G




                        Tyler v. A.W.                                        Product Identification; Identical
    VA (DC              Chesterton, et                                       asbestos-containing and non-
127 case)     6/24/2011 al., 10-67425       Union Carbide     MSJ            asbestos containing products        Granted




                                            Goulds Pumps,
                        Mattox, et al. v.   Inc., Leslie
                        Various             Controls, Inc.,
    W.D.N.C             Defendants, 07-     and Warren
128 .         6/30/2011 73489               Pumps, LLC        MSJ            Statute of Limitations              Denied




                        Mattox, et al. v.
                        Various
    W.D.N.C             Defendants, 07- Georgia-Pacific
129 .         6/30/2011 73489             LLC                 MSJ            Product Identification              Granted




                                                                        39
                                                           MDL-875 Decisions

        A         B              C                D            E                        F                 G




                         Mattox, et al. v.
                         Various
    W.D.N.C              Defendants, 07- Goulds Pumps,
130 .          6/30/2011 73489             Inc.          MSJ            Product Identification        Granted




                                                                                                      Granted
                                                                                                      in part
                         Holmes v.                                                                    and
                         AC&S, Inc., et                                 Bare Metal Defense;           denied in
131 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 al., 06-61617    Viacom, Inc.   MSJ            Government Contractor Defense part




                         Jacobs v. AC&S,
                         Inc., et al., 06-
132 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 61612             CBS Corp.     MSJ            Product Identification        Granted




                                                                   40
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

        A         B               C                 D               E                        F           G




                         Jacobs v. AC&S,
                         Inc., et al., 06- International
133 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 61612             Paper Corp.        MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                         Jacobs v. AC&S,
                         Inc., et al., 06- WACO
134 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 61612             Insulation, Inc.   MSJ            Product Identification   Granted




                                                                        41
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

           A      B              C                D              E                        F                     G




                         Stevens v. 3M
                         Business
                         Products Sales,
                         Inc., et al., 09-
135 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 91897             CBS Corp.       MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                         Stevens v. 3M
                         Business
                         Products Sales,
                         Inc., et al., 09- International
136 E.D. Va.   7/12/2011 91897             Paper Corp.     MSJ            Product Identification            Granted




                         Archer, Riggs
                         and McGuffie,                                                                      Granted
                         09-70093, 09-                                    Statute of Limitations; Duty to   in Part;
                         70094, 09-        MW Custom                      Provide a Safe Workplace;         Denied in
137 Ala.       7/13/2011 70095             Papers, Inc.    MSJ            Negligent Inspection              Part




                                                                     42
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C                D               E                       F                 G

                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,
                          LLC, et al., 09-
138 Fed.        7/18/2011 70103             Am General, LLC MSJ             Government Contractor Defense Denied




                                            Arvin-Meritor,
                          Hoffeditz, et al. Inc. and
                          v. Am General, Rockwell                           Government Contractor
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09- International                    Defense; Sophisticated User
139 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Corp.            MSJ            Defense                       Denied




                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,                                    Product ID; Government
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09-                                  Contractor Defense;
140 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Cummins Inc.     MSJ            Sophisticated User Defense    Denied




                                                                       43
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C                D               E                         F              G

                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09-
141 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Dana Corp.       MSJ            Product Identification       Granted




                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09- Detroit Diesel
142 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Corp.            MSJ            Successor Liability          Granted




                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09-                                  Product Identification and
143 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Ford Motor Co.   MSJ            Failure to Warn              Denied


                          Hoffeditz, et al.
                          v. Am General,
    N.J. (Pa.             LLC, et al., 09- Standard Motor
144 law)        7/18/2011 70103             Products, Inc. MSJ              Product Identification       Granted




                                                                       44
                                                         MDL-875 Decisions

        A          B              C               D          E                        F                 G




    Ala./Mar              Lewis, et al. v.
    itime                 Asbestos Corp.,
    (N.J.                 Ltd., et al., 10-
145 case)       7/26/2011 64625 (D.N.J.) CBS Corp.     MSJ            Product Identification         Granted




                          Smith v. A.W.
                          Chesterton Co.,                             Product Identification; Bare
146 C.D. Cal.   7/26/2011 et al., 10-69338 ITT Corp.   MSJ            Metal Defense                  Denied




                                                                 45
                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

       A       B              C                D          E                        F                 G




                      Dalton, et al. v.
    Miss.             3M Co., et al.,
    (Del.             10-64604 (D.                                 Learned Intermediary;
147 case)   7/26/2011 Del.)             CBS Corp.   MSJ            Government Contractor Defense Denied




                      Dalton, et al. v.
    Miss.             3M Co., et al.,                              Product Identification; Bare
    (Del.             10-64604 (D.                                 Metal Defense; Government
148 case)   7/26/2011 Del.)             Crane Co.   MSJ            Contractor Defense             Denied




                                                              46
                                                             MDL-875 Decisions

           A      B             C               D                E                        F                  G




                                                                                                         Granted
                         Dalton, et al. v.                                Product Identification; Bare   in part
    Miss.                3M Co., et al.,                                  Metal Defense; conspiracy,     and
    (Del.                10-64604 (D. Foster Wheeler                      wanton, willful, intentional   denied in
149 case)      7/26/2011 Del.)             Energy Corp.   MSJ             conduct                        part




                                                                                                         Granted
                         Dalton, et al. v.                                Product Identification; Bare   in part
    Miss.                3M Co., et al.,                                  Metal Defense; conspiracy,     and
    (Del.                10-64604 (D. Warren Pumps,                       wanton, willful, intentional   denied in
150 case)      7/26/2011 Del.)             LLC      MSJ                   conduct                        part




                         Lewis, et al. v.
                         Asbestos Corp.,
                         Ltd., et al., 10- Asbestos Corp.,
151 N.J.       7/26/2011 64625             Ltd.            MSJ            Product Identification         Granted




                                                                     47
                                                              MDL-875 Decisions

           A      B              C                D               E                          F                G




                         Lewis, et al. v.
                         Asbestos Corp.,
                         Ltd., et al., 10- Asbestos Corp.,                 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
152 N.J.       7/26/2011 64625             Ltd.            MSJ             F.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) & 12(b)(2)    Denied




                         Lewis, et al. v.
                         Asbestos Corp.,
                         Ltd., et al., 10- Bell Asbestos
153 N.J.       7/26/2011 64625             Mines, Ltd.     MSJ             Product Identification          Denied




                         Lewis, et al. v.
                         Asbestos Corp.,
                         Ltd., et al., 10- General Electric
154 N.J.       7/26/2011 64625             Co.              MSJ            Failure to warn                 Denied




                                                                      48
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

         A      B               C              D                E                       F                  G




                       Various
                       Plaintiffs v.
                       Huntington
                       Ingalls, 06-    Huntington
155 VA       8/23/2011 68004           Ingalls (Shipyard) Dismiss         "Take-home" asbestos exposure Denied




                       Various
                       Plaintiffs v.
                       Huntington
                       Ingalls, 06-    Huntington         Certify
156 VA       8/23/2011 68004           Ingalls (Shipyard) Question        "Take-home" asbestos exposure Denied




                                                                     49
                                                            MDL-875 Decisions

         A      B               C             D                 E                       F                     G




                       Various
                       Plaintiffs v.
                       Huntington
                       Ingalls, 06-
                       68004, 06-      Huntington
157 VA       8/23/2011 68012           Ingalls (Shipyard) MSJ            Admissibility of certain evidence Granted




                                                                    50
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

         A         B             C                     D            E                        F                  G




                        Various
                        Plaintiffs v.
                        Huntington
                        Ingalls, 06-       Huntington                        Product Identification; Duty;
158 VA        8/23/2011 68005              Ingalls (Shipyard) MSJ            Causation                       Denied

                         Amsler, et al. v.
                         Fisher Scientific
                         Co., et al., 08-                                    Motion to Remand; Federal
159 Fed.     N/A         5764 (E.D. Pa.) Plaintiff          Remand           Enclave Jurisdiction            Granted
                         Young, et ux. v.
                         AC&R
                         Insulation Co.,
                         et al., 09-60001                                    Motion to Remand; rule of
160 Fed.     N/A         (Md.)             Plaintiff        Remand           unanimity                       Granted




                                                                        51
                                                                 MDL-875 Decisions

           A         B           C                       D          E                          F                   G


                         Hagen v.
                         Benjamin
                         Foster Co., et
                         al., 07-63346                                        Motion to Remand; government
161 Fed.       N/A       (N.J.)              Plaintiff        Remand          contractor defense           Denied


                         Breedlove v.
                         CSX Transp.         CSX Transp.
162 Ga.        N/A       Corp., 09-75120     Corp.            MSJ             Premises Liability               Denied
                         Various
                         Plaintiffs v.
                         Various                                                                               Granted
                         Defendants                                                                            in part
                         ("Oil Field                                                                           and
                         Cases"), 09-MC-                                                                       denied in
163 Miss.      N/A       103                 Various Plaintiffs Remand        Motion to Remand                 part
                         Shamir v.
                         Agilent
                         Technologies,
                         Inc., et al., 08-   CSX Transp.                      "Dual Capacity Doctrine" under
164 N.J.       N/A       76816               Corp.            MSJ             NJWCA                            Granted
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173


                                                                         52
                      MDL-875 Decisions

      A   B   C   D      E                F   G
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206


                             53
                      MDL-875 Decisions

      A   B   C   D      E                F   G
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239


                             54
                      MDL-875 Decisions

      A   B   C   D      E                F   G
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272


                             55
                      MDL-875 Decisions

      A   B   C   D      E                F   G
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305


                             56
                      MDL-875 Decisions

      A   B   C   D      E                F   G
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322




                             57
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

                                      H

1 Summary

  Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
  and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
  test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
  workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. A
  coworker, who stated that he did the same type of work as Happel,
  testified that he performed work on a Foster Wheeler condensor, but
2 there was no evidence that asbestos fibers were released.


  Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
  and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
  test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
  workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. A
  coworker, who stated that he did the same type of work as Happel,
  testified that he performed work on an Ingersoll-Rand Co. pump and that
3 the turbines and pipes attached to the pump contained asbestos.

  Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
  and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
  test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
  workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. A
  coworker, who stated that he did the same type of work as Happel,
  testified that he performed work on Yarway steamtraps and Naval
  records indicated that Yarway steamtraps were present on the ships
  where Happel worked. Defendant admitted that some of its products
4 contained asbestos sealing components.




                                                                        58
                                                               MDL-875 Decisions

                                      H


  Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
  and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
  test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
  workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. A
  coworker testified that both he and Happel performed maintenance on
5 asbestos-containing turbines attached to a Westinghouse generator.

  Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
  and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
  test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
  workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. A
  coworker stated that he recalled removing the cap from General Electric
6 turbines on one ocassion and that the cap did not contain asbestos.

  New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. ACL
  supplied raw asbestos fibers to the plant where the Plaintiffs worked.
  Since both Plaintiffs frequently worked with asbestos fibers, ACL's
7 Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

  New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. The
  affidavit of Losito's son was held inadmissible under F.RE. 602 since the
  son did not have personal knowledge as to what products Losito worked
  with. Plaintiff presented evidence that Buffalo pumps were present on
  certain ships at New York Ship Building, but not that Losito ever worked
8 with these pumps.
  New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
  Plaintiff presented evidence that Westinghouse turbines were present on
  certain ships at New York Ship Building, but not that Losito ever worked
  with these turbines. Also, Plaintiff presented no medical evidence that
  Losito's asbestos-related disease was caused by exposure to
9 Westinghouse turbines.


                                                                        59
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H

     New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. The
     affidavit of Losito's son was held inadmissible under F.R.E. 602 since the
     son did not have personal knowledge as to what products Losito worked
     with. Plaintiff presented evidence that Warren pumps were present on
     certain ships at New York Ship Building, but not that Losito ever worked
10   with these pumps.
     Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
     Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated that
     they worked with Defendant's asbestos-containing products at certain
     steel mills where Bloom worked. The coworkers did not know Bloom
     and provided no evidence that Bloom ever worked in proximity to
11   Defendant's products.
     Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
     Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated that
     they worked with Defendant's asbestos-containing products at certain
     steel mills where Bloom worked. The coworkers did not know Bloom
     and provided no evidence that Bloom ever worked in proximity to
12   Defendant's products.
     Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
     Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated that
     they worked with Defendant's asbestos-containing products at certain
     steel mills where Bloom worked. The coworkers did not know Bloom
     and provided no evidence that Bloom ever worked in proximity to
13   Defendant's products.
     Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
     Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated that
     they worked with Defendant's asbestos-containing products at certain
     steel mills where Bloom worked. The coworkers did not know Bloom
     and provided no evidence that Bloom ever worked in proximity to
14   Defendant's products.




                                                                             60
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated that
   they worked near Power Piping Co. employees who were working with
   asbestos-containing products. The coworkers did not know Killmeyer
   and provided no evidence that Killmeyer ever worked in proximity to
15 Power Piping Co. employees.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated
   Oglebay Norton Co. asbestos-containing products were present at the
   steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
16 proximity to Oglebay Norton Co. asbestos-containing products.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated
   Eichleay Corp. employees worked with asbestos-containing products at
   the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
17 proximity to these Eichleay Corp. employees.
   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented testimony from various coworkers who stated
   asbestos-containing products supplied by Hunter Sales Corp. were
   present at the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did
   not know Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked
   in proximity to asbestos-containing products supplied by Hunter Sales
18 Corp.




                                                                           61
                                                                 MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented evidence that Hedman Mines, Ltd. supplied asbestos
   to Thiem Corp. and presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Thiem Corp. asbestos-containing products were present at
   the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
19 proximity to Thiem Corp. asbestos-containing products.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Honeywell, Inc. asbestos-containing products were present
   at the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
20 proximity to Honeywell, Inc. asbestos-containing products.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Foseco, Inc. asbestos-containing products were present at
   the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
21 proximity to Foseco, Inc. asbestos-containing products.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented evidence that M.S. Jacobs & Associates, Inc. was the
   exclusive supplier of DeZurik valves and presented testimony from
   various coworkers who stated that DeZurik valves were present at the
   steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
22 proximity to DeZurik valves.




                                                                         62
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Allied Glove Corp. asbestos-containing gloves were present
   at the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
23 proximity to Allied Glove Corp. asbestos-containing gloves.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Koppers asbestos-containing products were present at the
   steel mills where Weidner worked. Beazer East, Inc. is the successor to
   Koppers. The coworkers did not know Weidner and provided no
   evidence that Weidner ever worked in proximity to Koppers asbestos-
24 containing products.

   Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs presented presented testimony from various coworkers who
   stated that Thiem Corp. asbestos-containing products were present at
   the steel mills where Weidner worked. The coworkers did not know
   Weidner and provided no evidence that Weidner ever worked in
25 proximity to Thiem Corp. asbestos-containing products.




                                                                        63
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H


   To satisfy the federal contractor defense, Defendant must show that (1)
   the United States approved reasonably precise specifications for the
   product at issue; (2) the equipment conformed to those specifications
   and; (3) it warned the United States about the dangers in the use of the
   equipment that were known to it but not to the United States.
   McElhone worked at Beazer's facility. Beazer entered into a lease with a
   U.S. entity, but Beazer failed to show that pursuant to the lease
   agreement , Beazer had no control over the facility where McElhone
   worked. Moreover, since the lease did not even mention warnings,
   there was no evidence that the United States approved reasonably
26 precise specifications as to the entire facility where McElhone worked.


   In asbestos cases, West Virginia aderes to a general products liability test
   that a manufacturer may be held liable when a defect in its product
   proximately causes a plaintiff's injury. The Fourth Circuit, applying West
   Virginia law, has cited to the Lohrmann standard with approval. Plaintiff
   presented evidence that Brown worked at Weirton Steel and that Gage
   Co., for which IU North America, Inc. is liable, supplied products to
   Weirton Steel; however, Plaintiff presented no evidence that Gage Co.
   supplied asbestos-containing products to Weirton Steel or that Brown
27 was ever exposed to any products supplied by Gage Co.

   Under Washington law, general contractors who maintain supervisory
   and coordinating authority over multiple contractors in common work
   areas are responsible for job safety in those common work areas.
   Lockheed was the general contractor and Anderson was the employee of
   a subcontractor hired by Lockheed. Plaintiff presented evidence that
   Lockheed inspected Anderson's work and that Anderson worked around
28 tradesmen working with asbestos-containing products.




                                                                            64
                                                                     MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H

   In asbestos cases, West Virginia aderes to a general products liability test
   that a manufacturer may be held liable when a defect in its product
   proximately causes a plaintiff's injury. The Fourth Circuit, applying West
   Virginia law, has cited to the Lohrmann standard with approval. Two
   coworkers, who worked directly with Modley on two specific ships,
   testified that the boiler tenders worked with Crane Co. asbestos-
29 containing products.

   Plaintiff attached Cowley's deposition taken in a different case where
   Cowley was testifying as a coworker. MCIC was not present for the
   deposition. The deposition was held inadmissible under F.R.E. 804(b)(1)
   despite the fact that Cowley satisfied the unavailability requirement
   since no defendant present at the coworker deposition had a similar
   motive as MCIC would have had in deposing Cowley as a plaintiff. Since
   Cowley's testimony was inadmissible, Plaintiff had no evidence that
   Cowley ever worked in proximity to MCIC employees working with
30 asbestos-containing products.

   Maryland applies the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test, but in
   applying this test, considers factors such as the size of the facility at issue
   and the relationship of a bytander plaintiff to the direct users of asbestos-
   containing products. Plaintiff presented invoices showing that MCIC
   supplied asbestos-containing products to the shipyard where Street
   worked and testimony from MCIC employees who worked with asbestos-
   containing products at the shipyard; however, Plaintiff presented no
   evidence placing Street in proximity to any MCIC products or employees
31 in this vast shipyard.




                                                                              65
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   A party may not submit an affidavit contradicting a prior deposition in
   order to survive summary judgment without providing a plausible
   explanation such as being confused at the deposition or correcting a
   prior statement. Kevin Buttars, the decedent's son, testified in his
   deposition that his father worked with three types of brakes and that
   without work records which had been destroyed, he would not be able
   to remember any more manufacturer's names. In his affidavit, Kevin
   Buttars testified that after reviewing photos of Dana, Maremount, and
   Pneumo Abex products, he recalled that his father also worked with
   these products. Since Kevin Buttars provided no plausible explanation
   for his sudden remembrance, the Motions to Strike his affidavit were
32 granted.

   The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
   necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
   Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
   test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
   defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
    Plaintiff alleges that Odom's wife was secondarily exposed to asbestos
   from her husband when he came home from work. Since Plaintiff
   presented no evidence placing Odom in proximity to Goulds pumps,
   there was no evidence that Odom's wife was secondarily exposed to
33 asbestos from those products.




                                                                          66
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
   necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
   Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
   test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
   defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
    DuPont was not present at the deposition of the Plaintiff and did not
   have a motive similar to any defendant present. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
   testimony was inadmissible and Plaintiff had no product identification
34 evidence.

   The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
   necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
   Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
   test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
   defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
    DuPont was not present at the deposition of the Plaintiff and did not
   have a motive similar to any defendant present. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
   testimony was inadmissible and Plaintiff had no product identification
35 evidence.


   The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
   necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
   Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
   test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
   defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
    GPC distributed NAPA brakes. Talbot's son testified that Talbot was one
   of two mechanics at the shop at issue and that NAPA brakes were used
   at the shop. Because of the size of the shop and the fact that Talbot was
   sometimes the only mechanic at the shop, Plaintiff raised a genuine issue
36 of material fact as to whether Talbot was exposed to NAPA brakes.




                                                                          67
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   Plaintiff's only product identification had been sticken pursuant to the
   sham affidavit doctrine. Accordingly, even under the most lenient test
   requiring Plaintiff to show exposure to Defendant's products, Plaintiff
37 failed to present any evidence to survive summary judgment.

   Plaintiff's only product identification had been sticken pursuant to the
   sham affidavit doctrine. Accordingly, even under the most lenient test
   requiring Plaintiff to show exposure to Defendant's products, Plaintiff
38 failed to present any evidence to survive summary judgment.

   Plaintiff's only product identification had been sticken pursuant to the
   sham affidavit doctrine. Accordingly, even under the most lenient test
   requiring Plaintiff to show exposure to Defendant's products, Plaintiff
39 failed to present any evidence to survive summary judgment.


   Alabama has not adopted a specific standard for asbestos cases, but in
   products liability cases, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the
   identity of a manufacturer may be proven by circumstantial, but not
   speculative evidence. In his deposition, Archer testified that he worked
   with "Paper Machine Felts" at CAPCO. Defendant presented evidence
   that while Albany supplied "wet felts" to CAPCO, where Archer worked, it
   was not CAPCO's only supplier and therefore, there was no way of
40 determining whether Archer ever worked with any Albany "wet felts."

   Alabama has not adopted a specific standard for asbestos cases, but in
   products liability cases, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the
   identity of a manufacturer may be proven by circumstantial, but not
   speculative evidence. Defendant presented evidence that while Albany
   supplied "wet felts" to CAPCO, where Riggs worked, it was not CAPCO's
   only supplier. Plaintiff presented no evidence that Riggs ever worked
41 with any Albany "wet felts."


                                                                          68
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H

   Alabama has not adopted a specific standard for asbestos cases, but in
   products liability cases, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the
   identity of a manufacturer may be proven by circumstantial, but not
   speculative evidence. Defendant presented evidence that while Albany
   supplied "wet felts" to CAPCO, where McGuffie worked, it was not
   CAPCO's only supplier. Plaintiff presented no evidence that McGuffie
42 ever worked with any Albany "wet felts."

   Delaware does not follow the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test
   and rather adheres to a more lenient "product nexus" test. Under this
   test, plaintiff must show that defendant's products were present in the
   workplace and were capable of releasing friable asbestos fibers. Both
   Pease and his coworker testified that Pease worked with Crane Co.
43 asbestos-containing products.

   Under the Texas' Workmens Compensation Act, if an employee is
   entitled to worker's compensation, then that is the employees only
   remedy. Mesothelioma was added as a covered injury in 1971. Under
   Texas law, injury occurs upon the inhalation of asbestos fibers. Since all
   of Bearce's alleged exposures occurred prior to 1971, he was not barred
44 by the Texas' Workmens Compensation Act from bringing his claims.


   The sham affidavit doctrine applies with equal force when a deposition
   conflicts with a prior affidavit. In his affidavit, Albertson testified that he
   worked with Benjamen Foster asbestos-containing products. Bayer is
   liable for Benjamin Foster products. In a subsequent deposition,
   Albertson identified some manufacturers, but did not identify Benjamin
   Foster. It was the duty of Plaintiff's counsel to rehabilitate the witness so
   that Albertson could be subject to cross examination on this issue. Since
   the affidavit was stricken, Plaintiff had no evidence placing Albertson in
45 proximity to any Benjamin Foster asbestos-containing products.


                                                                               69
                                                                     MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H


   The sham affidavit doctrine applies with equal force when a deposition
   conflicts with a prior affidavit. In his affidavit, McDaniel testified that he
   worked with Crane Co. asbestos-containing products. In a subsequent
   deposition, McDaniel identified some manufacturers, but did not identify
   Crane Co. It was the duty of Plaintiff's counsel to rehabilitate the witness
   so that McDaniel could be subject to cross examination on this issue.
   Since the affidavit was stricken, Plaintiff had no evidence placing
46 McDaniel in proximity to any Crane Co. asbestos-containing products.




   Becnel worked at Avondale Industries. Plaintiff sued the executive
   officer of Avondale Industries. The pre-1976 version of Louisiana's
   Workers' Compensation Act permits co-employee suits, but the
   Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act does not. Because
   Plaintiff's workers' compensation claims are preempted by the LHWCA,
47 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

   Maryland applies the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test, but in
   applying this test, considers factors such as the size of the facility at issue
   and the relationship of a bytander plaintiff to the direct users of asbestos-
   containing products. Behr, who worked with Walker, testified that
   Walker worked on Cessna aircrafts, that Walker worked with Lycoming
   engines manufactured by AVCO, and that Walker was exposed to
48 asbestos when working with these products.




                                                                              70
                                                                 MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H




   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Blanks testified that he worked around Daniels employees working with
   asbestos-containing products and he believed he was exposed to
49 asbestos at these times.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Blanks testified that he worked at a mill around employees working with
   pumps. Various employees testified that Goulds pumps were present at
   the mill; however, there was no evidence placing Blanks in proximity to
50 the Goulds pumps.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Blanks testified that he worked at a mill around employees working with
   pumps. Various employees testified that Peerless pumps (manufactured
   by Sterling) were present at the mill; however, there was no evidence
51 placing Blanks in proximity to the Peerless pumps.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. In his
   affidavit and deposition, Johnson testified that he worked with Crane Co.
52 products and that asbestos was released in this process.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. In his
   deposition, Johnson testified that he worked with Victor gaskets
   manufactured by Dana Corp.; however, he testified that no asbestos dust
53 was released when he worked with these products.


                                                                         71
                                                                 MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H


   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. In his
   deposition, Small testified that he worked with Victor gaskets
   manufactured by Dana Corp., but that he did not know whether asbestos
   was released in this process. In an affidavit, Johnson averred that
   asbestos was released when he worked with Victor gaskets. This
   affidavit was not stricken pursuant to sham affidavit doctrine since it
   clarified his prior deposition testimony that he did not know whether the
54 gaskets did or did not contain asbestos.


   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. In his
   deposition, Small testified that he worked around Daniel employees, but
   that nothing done by any Daniel employees caused him to be exposed to
55 asbestos.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. In his
   affidavit and deposition, Blackmon testified that he worked with Crane
56 Co. products and that asbestos was released in this process.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiff submitted testimony from employees who worked with
   Benjamin Foster asbestos-containing glue manufactured by Bayer at the
   Charleston Naval Shipyard; however, Plaintiff presented no evidence that
57 Geathers was ever in proximity to this Benjamin Foster glue.




                                                                         72
                                                                MDL-875 Decisions

                                       H




   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Christian testified that he worked within 25 feet of Daniels insulators.
   While he testified that no work done by outside cotractors caused him to
   be exposed to asbestos, he did not specifically name Daniels in this
   exchange. He identified Daniels as an insulation subcontractor, thus
   raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether working around
58 Daniels insulators caused Christian to be exposed to asbestos.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   South Carolina has not addressed the bare metal defense in the asbestos
   context, so that issue was remanded to the transferee court. Fritz
   testified that he worked with Crane Co. asbestos-containing products at
59 various jobsites.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Jirel testified that Noland Co. supplied products to his employer. The
   parties agreed that Noland Co. generally supplied both asbestos and non-
   asbestos-containing products. Since Jirel could not specifically identify
   any asbestos-containing products Noland Co. supplied to his employer
   and Noland Co. was not Jirel's employer's only supplier, Defendant's
60 Motion for Sumary Judgment was granted.

   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiff submitted testimony from employees who worked with
   Benjamin Foster asbestos-containing glue manufactured by Bayer at the
   Charleston Naval Shipyard; however, Plaintiff presented no evidence that
61 Kanapaux was ever in proximity to this Benjamin Foster glue.




                                                                         73
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H
   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. Both Anderson and his coworker testified
   that Anderson worked with Georgia-Pacific (Bestwall) asbestos-
62 containing joint compounds.

   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. Plaintiff asserted that Rapid American was
   liable for asbestos supplied by Phillip Carey and that Phillip Carey
   asbestos was used in Bestwall joint compounds. Anderson worked with
   joint compounds. Since Defendant presented evidence that Bestwall
   also used Johns-Manville asbestos, there was no way to determine
63 whether Anderson was exposed to asbestos supplied by Phillip Carey.

   A plaintiff's claims under FELA cannot be released pursuant to a
   boilerplate general release. Rather, the release must explain the rights
   that the employee is giving up by detailing the risks to which the plaintiff
   has been exposed. In this case, Bludworth signed a release with his
   employer for a prior hearing loss claim and while the release mentioned
   asbestosis, it did not provide sufficient detail of the rights that Bludworth
   was giving up in signing the release. Accordingly, Defendant was not
64 entitled to summary judgment because of the prior release.

   A plaintiff's claims under FELA cannot be released pursuant to a
   boilerplate general release. Rather, the release must explain the rights
   that the employee is giving up by detailing the risks to which the plaintiff
   has been exposed. In this case, Maynor signed a release with his
   employer for a prior hearing loss claim and while the release mentioned
   asbestosis, it did not provide sufficient detail of the rights that Maynor
   was giving up in signing the release. Accordingly, Defendant was not
65 entitled to summary judgment because of the prior release.




                                                                             74
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H

   FELA's three year statute of limitations is triggered when a plaintiff,
   acting in a reasonably diligent manner, would have learned both of his or
   her injury and its cause. Robinson was diagnosed with small cell lung
   cancer in 1996. Robinson was then diagnosed with non-small cell lung
   cancer in 2002. On May 30, 2001, Mr. Robinson was diagnosed with
   asbestosis. Defendant only sought summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s
   claim based on the 1996 small cell lung cancer diagnosis. Robinson failed
   to exercise reasonable diligence since he did not take any steps to
   investigate into the cause of his small cell lung cancer. Accordingly,
   Plaintiff's claims stemming from the small cell lung cancer are barred by
66 FELA's statute of limitations.


   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Delatte
   testified that he worked with Westinghouse turbines; however, there
   was no evidence that Westinghouse provided any of the insulation for
   these turbines. The bare metal defense is recognized under maritime
67 law and therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Initially, in his
   deposition, Delatte testified that he worked with Delaval pumps, but
   then later stated that he could not recall when or how many times he
   worked with any Delaval pumps. Since this was Plaintiff's only product
   identification testimony and Delatte could not definitively testify that he
   worked with any Deleval pump, Defendant's Motion for Summary
68 Judgment was granted.




                                                                               75
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H


   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Delatte
   testified that he worked with Warren pumps; however, there was no
   evidence that Warren manufactured or supplied any of the insulation for
   these pumps. The bare metal defense is recognized under maritime law
69 and therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Ferguson
   testified that he worked with General Electric turbines; however, there
   was no evidence that General Electric provided any of the insulation for
   these turbines. The bare metal defense is recognized under maritime
70 law and therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.


   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Ferguson
   testified that he worked with pumps on a certain ship and Plaintiff
   presented evidence that Ingersoll-Rand pumps were present on the ship;
   however, there was no evidence placing Ferguson in proximity to these
   Ingersoll-Rand pumps. Moreover, there was no evidence that Ingersoll-
   Rand supplied any of the asbestos-containing components incorporated
   into the pumps. The bare metal defense is recognized under maritime
71 law and therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.




                                                                          76
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H


   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Ferguson
   testified that he worked with pumps on a certain ship and Plaintiff
   presented evidence that Delaval pumps were present on the ship;
   however, there was no evidence placing Ferguson in proximity to these
   Delaval pumps. Moreover, there was no evidence that Delaval supplied
   any of the asbestos-containing components incorporated into the
   pumps. The bare metal defense is recognized under maritime law and
72 therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

   A claim must satisfy the "locality" and "maritime connection" tests for a
   court to have maritime jurisdiction. Under maritime law, the
   "substantial factor" test applies for product identification. Plaintiff
   presented evidence that Ferguson worked with an evaporator on a
   certain ships and that Grisom-Russell evaporators, for which Viad is
   allegedly liable, were on that ship. However, Plaintiff presented no
   evidence that Griscom-Russell supplied any of the asbestos-containing
   component parts incorporated into the evaporator. The bare metal
   defense is recognized under maritime law and therefore, Defendant was
73 entitled to summary judgment.

   N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50(a)(6) provides that, "[n]o action for recovery of
   damages for personal injury, death or damage to property based upon or
   arising out of any alleged defect or any failure in relation to a product
   shall be brought more than six years after the date of initial purchase for
   use or consumption." This Court agreed with case law recognizing a
   latent disease exception to the statute of repose. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
   claims are not barred since the statute of repose does not apply to
74 asbestos claims.




                                                                           77
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50(a)(6) provides that, "[n]o action for recovery of
   damages for personal injury, death or damage to property based upon or
   arising out of any alleged defect or any failure in relation to a product
   shall be brought more than six years after the date of initial purchase for
   use or consumption." This Court agreed with case law recognizing a
   latent disease exception to the statute of repose. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
   claims are not barred since the statute of repose does not apply to
   asbestos claims. The fact that Plaintiff asserted wrongful death claims
75 does not change this analysis.

   Ohio follows the substantial factor test and considers the manner in
   which the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s asbestos; the
   proximity of the plaintiff to the defendant’s asbestos; the frequency and
   length of the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s asbestos; and any
   factors that mitigated or enhanced the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.
   Ferguson taught for approximately one year at Richardson Elementary
   School. Plaintiff presented evidence that a Pacific boiler, for which Crane
   Co. is liable, was present in the boiler room at the school, but not that
   any friable asbestos fibers were released when Ferguson was in the
76 boiler room.


   Ohio follows the substantial factor test and considers the manner in
   which the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s asbestos; the
   proximity of the plaintiff to the defendant’s asbestos; the frequency and
   length of the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s asbestos; and any
   factors that mitigated or enhanced the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.
   Ferguson taught at Price Elementary School. Plaintiff presented evidence
   that a American Radiator boiler, for which Trane is liable, was present in
   the boiler room at the school, but not that any friable asbestos fibers
77 were released when Ferguson was in the boiler room.




                                                                           78
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H


   Ohio follows the substantial factor test and considers the manner in
   which the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant’s asbestos; the
   proximity of the plaintiff to the defendant’s asbestos; the frequency and
   length of the plaintiff’s exposure to the defendant’s asbestos; and any
   factors that mitigated or enhanced the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos.
   Plaintiff presented evidence that Ferguson smoked Kent cigarettes,
   which contained asbestos, because of ads that Kent cigarettes were
   better for you than other cigarettes. As to fraudulent concealment and
   misrepresentation, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was
   granted since there was no evidence that Defendant knew of the dangers
   of asbestos when it marketed the cigarettes or intended to mislead
   Ferguson. As to product identification and express warranty,
78 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.


   According to Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 2307.23(a)(2), in order to apportion
   liability in tort cases, the jury shall consider, “*t+he percentage of tortious
   conduct that proximately caused the injury or loss to person or property
   or the wrongful death that is attributable to each person from whom the
   plaintiff does not seek recovery in this action.” Plaintiff asks this Court to
   grant summary judgment finding that a two-page list of asbestos
   manufacturers, suppliers, and products were not significant contributing
   factors to Ferguson’s development of mesothelioma. Under F.R.C.P.
   56(c), Plaintiff cannot shift the burden to Defendants to show that non-
   Defendants products were substantial contributing factors to Ferguson's
79 development of mesothelioma.




                                                                               79
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

   Sowizral has already collected workers’ compensation benefits and thus
   Plaintiffs are alleging that Defendants Triple A and Salvatore Fasciana, a
   Triple A employee, committed an intentional tort by continuing to place
   Sowizral in a dangerous environment and that they knew with
   substantial certainty that she would suffer injuries as a result of asbestos
   exposure at the Triple A plant. Even if the Court accepts that the
   Defendants knew of the dangers of asbestos, there is no evidence that
   the Defendants knew with substantial certainty that Plaintiff would
80 suffer injury as a result of exposure to this asbestos.


   South Carolina follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
   Plaintiffs have presented evidence that Corbin worked with asbestos-
   containing pipe insulation at the Parris Island Marine Base. Plaintiffs
   have also presented evidence that Clarke was the insulator at the Parris
   Island Marine Base during the time Corbin worked there and that Clarke
   worked with Kaylo pipe covering and block insulation. However, since
   Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Corbin worked in proximity to
81 Clarke, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

   The Supreme Court of Maine has not adopted a standard for product
   identification in asbestos cases. The Superior Court has applied various
   tests. Therefore, it is unclear whether, under Maine law, plaintiff must
   simply show proximity to defendant’s product (Bessey), inhalation of
   asbestos dust from defendant’s product (Campbell, Boyd), or personal
   contact with asbestos from defendant’s product (Thomas, Rumery).
   Here, Plaintiff presented evidence that Foster Wheeler boilers were
   present on a ship where Powers worked, but failed to place Powers in
82 proximity to these boilers.




                                                                            80
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

   Virginia adheres to the indivisible cause of action theory and the statute
   of limitations for all asbestos-related claims begins to run on the initial
   date of diagnosis by a physician of any asbestos-related disease. The
   statute of limitations began to run for all of Plaintiff’s asbestos-related
   claims at least by the time Kiser was diagnosed with asbestosis in 1988.
   Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims stemming from Kiser’s 2009 mesothelioma
83 diagnosis are barred by the statute of limitations.


   California adheres to the "substantial contributing factor" test with
   frequency, regularity, and proximity as relevant factors although not
   determinative. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since the parties agreed that Mr. Smith worked with Defendant's pumps
   and co-workers testified that the pumps contained asbestos. Plaintiff's
   expert report was admissibe to survive summary judgment as to
   causation. The issue of the bare metal defense is unsettled in California
   and is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. Therefore,
84 this Court remanded that issue to the transferor court.




                                                                           81
                                                                 MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H




   The Court concluded that the maritime jurisdiction test required the
   Court to apply maritime law to those claims involving plaintiffs who were
   sea-based Navy workers where the allegedly defective product was
   produced for use on a vessel. By contrast, maritime law does not govern
   when the asbestos claims asserted stem from predominantly land-based
   Navy work even if the allegedly defective product was produced for use
85 on a vessel.


   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
86 Buffalo pumps and that he breathed in this dust during this process.

   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
   Crane valves and Cranite gasket material and that he breathed in this
87 dust during this process.




                                                                          82
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
   Foster Wheeler boilers and that he breathed in this dust from insulation
88 and gaskets connected to the boilers.


   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he was exposed to dust
89 from General Electric turbines.


   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
90 Delaval pumps and that he breathed in this dust during this process.

   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
   American Standard boilers and that he breathed in this dust during this
91 process.


   Under maritime law, the "substantial factor" test applies for product
   identification. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
   since, in his deposition, Mr. Prange testified that he worked on or around
92 Warren pumps and that he breathed in this dust during this process.




                                                                           83
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H




   Under North Carolina law, a premises owner ordinarily owes a duty of
   due care to an independent contractor and the employees of that
   independent contractor to warn the independent contractors and its
   employees of hidden dangers known to the premises owner, but not to
   the independent contractor or its employees. There are two exceptions
   to this general duty of due care. First, a premise owner owes no duty to
   an independent contractor for the actual work undertaken by the
   independent contractor, meaning the work over which the independent
   contractor has control. Second, there is a further exception in that, even
   for the actual work undertaken by the independent contractor, a
   premise owner still owes a nondelegable duty of due care for work that
   is inherently dangerous. In this case, SGL, the premises owner owed no
   general duty of care to Siding, Inc. or its employees since Defendant
   presented evidence that Siding, Inc. was aware of the dangers of
   asbestos. The issue of whether asbestos-containing siding is an
93 inherently dangerous activity should be submitted to a jury.


   Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to affirmative
   defenses that Defendant did not address in its opposition and denied as
94 to those Defendant opposed.




                                                                          84
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson testified that he
   worked with Carrier Corp. cooling towers, but that he did not know
   whether these towers contained asbestos. In its answer to
   interrogatories, Carrier Corp. admitted that some of its rooftop package
   units and industrial chillers may have been incorporated with asbestos-
   containing component parts; however, Carrier Corp. maintains that it did
   not manufacture the cooling towers that Mr. Anderson worked with.
   Even accepting that Carrier Corp. manufactured the cooling towers,
   there was no evidence that Anderson was exposed to asbestos from the
95 cooling towers.

   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson identified York
   only after being asked a leading question from his attorney. Although
   leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination, this
   rule is liberally construed where justice so requires. In this case,
   considering the fact that Anderson is now deceased and that he was able
   to testify about York products after the leading question, his testimony is
   admissible. Anderson testified that he was exposed to asbestos when he
   worked with York compressors and raised a genuine issue of material
   fact despite the fact that York asserted that it did not manufacture
96 compressors.
   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. Anderson testified that he hooked pre-
   insulated boilers up to gas lines, but there was no evidence that asbestos
97 fibers were released in this process.




                                                                           85
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson testified that he
   worked with Durco asbestos-containing products, for which Flowserve is
98 liable, and that he was exposed to asbestos dust in this process.
   Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
   considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
   determinative in any case. Anderson testified that he hooked pre-
   insulated boilers up to gas lines, but there was no evidence that asbestos
99 fibers were released in this process.


    Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
    considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
    determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson identified "Setco"
    only after being asked a leading question from his attorney. Despite the
    fact that Plaintiff did not object to the word "Setco" appearing in the
    deposition transcript instead of SEPCO, this Court admitted the evidence
    since there was no evidence that SEPCO was confused about being
    identified in the deposition. Although leading questions are generally
    not allowed on direct examination, this rule is liberally construed where
    justice so requires. In this case, considering the fact that Anderson is
    now deceased and that he was able to testify about SEPCO products
    after the leading question, his testimony is admissible. Anderson
    testified that he was exposed to asbestos when he worked with SEPCO
100 products.




                                                                          86
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H

    Plaintiff is not foreclosed from arguing that Trane is liable for Kenawee
    boilers since collateral estoppel cannot be applied against a party who
    was not a party to the earlier litigiation. Utah adheres to the "substantial
    causitive factor" test and while it considers frequency, regularity, and
    proximity, those factors are not determinative in any case. Anderson
    testified that he hooked pre-insulated boilers up to gas lines, but there
101 was no evidence that asbestos fibers were released in this process.

    Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
    considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
    determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson identified Goulds
    only after being asked a leading question from his attorney. Although
    leading questions are generally not allowed on direct examination, this
    rule is liberally construed where justice so requires. In this case,
    considering the fact that Anderson is now deceased and that he was able
    to testify about Goulds pumps after the leading question, his testimony is
    admissible. Anderson testified that he was exposed to asbestos when he
102 worked with Goulds pumps.




                                                                             87
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H


    Utah adheres to the "substantial causitive factor" test and while it
    considers frequency, regularity, and proximity, those factors are not
    determinative in any case. In his deposition, Anderson identified Crane
    Co. only after being asked a leading question from his attorney.
    Although leading questions are generally not allowed on direct
    examination, this rule is liberally construed where justice so requires. In
    this case, considering the fact that Anderson is now deceased and that he
    was able to testify about Crane Co. after the leading question, his
    testimony is admissible. Anderson testified that he was exposed to
    asbestos when he worked with Crane valves and gaskets, thus
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as to these
    products. Anderson testified that he worked with Crane boilers, but
    there was no evidence that asbestos was released in this process, thus
103 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to the boilers.

    Mississippi's statute of limitations is triggered when the plaintiff learns of
    his or her injury, despite the fact that the plaintiff may not know the
    cause of the injury. Plaintiff alleged that Certainteed should be held
    liable as a co-conspirator for Johns-Manville asbestos-containing
    products; however, the documents Plaintiff presented as evidence of an
    alleged conspiracy did not deal with the products at issue in this case. It
    was not necessary for the Court to reach the civil conspiracy issue since
    Plaintiff failed to present evidence placing Bunnell in proximity to Johns-
104 Manville asbestos-containing products.




                                                                               88
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H




    The Court ruled that Plaintiff's expert reports were inadmissible under
    F.R.C.P. 56(c)(1)(A) since no affidavits were submitted with the reports
    and the reports were not sworn to under penalty of perjury. Without
    these reports, there was no evidence of causation and thus Defendants
105 were entited to summary judgment.

    The situation presented was identical to that presented in the Faddish
    case. Defendant submitted affidavits arguing that it was entitled to
    summary judgment pursuant to the government contractor defense. As
    Plaintiff failed to submit evidence to controvert these affidavits,
106 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Since there was no
    evidence that Goldade worked in proximity to Defendant's products, but
    only that a Foster Wheeler manufactured the the Alkylation Unit at the
    Mandan refinery and that Goldade worked at this refinery, Defendant's
107 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.
    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff presented
    evidence that the subcontractor that Huelsman worked for ordered
    S.O.S. products, but there was no evidence that Huelsman worked with
108 these products.




                                                                           89
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H


    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Since there was no
    evidence that Jeffries worked in proximity to Defendant's products, but
    only that Foster Wheeler products were present at the plant where
109 Jeffries worked, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.
    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff presented
    evidence that the subcontractor that Lantz worked for ordered S.O.S.
    products, but there was no evidence that Lantz worked with these
110 products.

    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Since there was no
    evidence that Miller worked in proximity to Defendant's products, but
    only that a Foster Wheeler manufactured the the Alkylation Unit at the
    Mandan refinery and that Miller worked at this refinery, Defendant's
111 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Since there was no
    evidence that O'Shea worked in proximity to Defendant's products, but
    only that a Foster Wheeler manufactured the the Alkylation Unit at the
    Mandan refinery and that O'Shea worked at this refinery, Defendant's
112 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.




                                                                           90
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    Under North Dakota law, a cause is proximate if it had a substantial part
    in immediately causing the injury. A plaintiff cannot survive summary
    judgment with purely circumstantial evidence. Since there was no
    evidence that Wallace worked in proximity to Defendant's products, but
    only that a Foster Wheeler manufactured the the Alkylation Unit at the
    Mandan refinery and that Wallace worked at this refinery, Defendant's
113 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

    California adheres to the "substantial contributing factor" test with
    frequency, regularity, and proximity as relevant factors although not
    determinative. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted
    as to the C-97 aircrafts since Defendant presented evidence that
    Goodyear brakes were not used on this aircraft and Plaintiff failed to
    controvert this evidence. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
    was denied as to the brakes used on the C-124 aircrafts since Brown
    testified that he handled Goodyear brakes for these aircrafts and inhaled
114 dust in this process.


    The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
    necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
    Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
    defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
     The parties agreed that Florida law applied despite the fact that all
    exposures occurred in Ohio. Lowther's son testified that his father used
    asbestos-containing Bendix brakes. This Court allowed in the deposition
    testimony despite the fact that it was illicited through leading questions
    since Lowther's son was able to provide detailed testimony and
    Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine him. Accordingly,
115 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.




                                                                           91
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
    necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
    Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
    defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
     The parties agreed that Florida law applied despite the fact that all
    exposures occurred in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of
    material fact as to whether the Sherwin-Williams paint that Lowther
    worked with contained asbestos and failed to raise a genuine issue of
    material fact as to whether joint compounds purchased a Sherwin-
    Williams contributed to Lowther's development of an asbestos-related
116 disease.


    The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
    necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
    Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
    defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
     The parties agreed that Florida law applied despite the fact that all
    exposures occurred in Ohio. Plaintiff alleged that Lowther was exposed
    to asbestos in Durabound and Georgia-Pacific joint compounds and that
    Union Carbide provided asbestos for use in these joint compounds. Since
    Union Carbide was not the sole supplier of asbetos to either company,
117 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.




                                                                           92
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H


    The Florida Supreme Court has not articulated a standard of causation
    necessary to survive summary judgment in asbestos cases, and lower
    Florida courts have rejected the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    test. Rather, under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a
    defendant’s product was a “substantial contributing factor” to the injury.
     The parties agreed that Florida law applied despite the fact that all
    exposures occurred in Ohio. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
    was granted as to Western Auto headlights, taillights, gaskets, and other
    products since Lowther's son could not recall whether these products
    were purchased from Western Auto or NAPA and failed to show that the
    products Lowther worked with contained asbestos. Defendant's Motion
    for Summary Judgment was denied as to Wizard brakes, despite the fact
    that the testimony was elicited through the use of leading questions
118 since all Wizard brakes contained asbestos.

    The Supreme Court of Nevada has not specifically addressed product
    identification in the asbestos context. Generally, in products liability
    actions, the Supreme Court of Nevada has held that the substantial
    factor test applies when an injury could have multiple causes, each of
    which operating alone may have been sufficient to cause the injury.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied since Plaintiff
    presented the deposition testimony of Kirkham, Tafoya's coworker, who
    testified that Tafoya was exposed to dust when he removed BorgWarner
119 clutch products.




                                                                           93
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H


    The Supreme Court of Nevada has not specifically addressed product
    identification in the asbestos context. Generally, in products liability
    actions, the Supreme Court of Nevada has held that the substantial
    factor test applies when an injury could have multiple causes, each of
    which operating alone may have been sufficient to cause the injury.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted since Kirkham,
    Tafoya's coworker, testified that Meyers supplied products to Tafoya's
    employer, but could not testify as to whether Tafoya worked with these
120 products or as to whether the products contained asbestos.


    The Supreme Court of Nevada has not specifically addressed product
    identification in the asbestos context. Generally, in products liability
    actions, the Supreme Court of Nevada has held that the substantial
    factor test applies when an injury could have multiple causes, each of
    which operating alone may have been sufficient to cause the injury.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted as to Bendix
    brakes since Kirkham, Tafoya's coworker, could not recall Tafoya working
    with Bendix brakes. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was
    granted as to Bendix clutch products since Kirkham recalled Tafoya
121 working with and being exposed to asbestos dust from these products.




                                                                          94
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    The Supreme Court of Nevada has not specifically addressed product
    identification in the asbestos context. Generally, in products liability
    actions, the Supreme Court of Nevada has held that the substantial
    factor test applies when an injury could have multiple causes, each of
    which operating alone may have been sufficient to cause the injury.
    Under Nevada law, a manufacturer may be held liable for failing to warn
    the user of defects in a finished product. Defendant's Motion for
    Summary Judgment was denied since coworkers testified that Tafoya
    was exposed to asbestos when working on VW automobiles and under
    Neveda law, VW, as the manufacturer of the finished product can be held
122 liable for these exposures.

    Plaintiffs' only exposure evidence was expert testimony stating that
    Decedent would have been responsible for routine maintenance on the
    distillers at issue. As Plaintiffs' expert has no firsthand knowledge about
123 what Decedent actually did, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

    Decedent testified that his work on Defendant's deaerating tank was
    "few and far between" and that he did not have to touch any insulation.
    Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    insulation on Defendant's products was a substantial contributing factor,
124 under either Maritime or Virginia law.

    Decedent's testimony that he worked with Bendix brakes "hundreds and
    hundreds" of times and that it was dusty was sufficient to create a
    genuine issue of material fact under Viriginia law as to whether
125 Defendant's products were an actual and proximate cause of his injuries.
    Decedent's testimony that he worked with Defendant's product "when
    the occasion arose" showed only a "minimal" level of exposure to
    asbestos from Defendant's product which is insufficient under maritime
126 law.




                                                                            95
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    The product at issue, "Bakelite" came in both asbestos-containing and
    non-asbestos containing varieties. Although Decedent identified brand-
    name Baklite, there would be no way for a jury to determine, absent
    impermissible speculation, that the Bakelite he worked with was the
    asbestos-containing variety. The Court denied Plaintiff's request to file
    untimely expert testimony that supported a finding that the Bakelite at
127 issue was asbestos-containing.

    In 1993, Mattox was diagnosed with asbestosis. He brought suit against
    various defendants for these injuries. On April 12, 2006, Mr. Mattox was
    diagnosed with mesothelioma and filed a lawsuit for these injuries.
    Defendants claimed that the statute of limitations on the mesothelioma
    began to run at the time of the asbestosis diagnosis. Under North
    Carolina law, the mesothelioma diagnosis constituted a separate injury
    which Mattox could not have discovered at the time of the asbestosis
    diagnosis, and thus Plaintiff's mesothelioma claims were not barred by
128 the statute of limitations.


    The Fourth Circuit, applying North Carolina law, has cited to Lohrmann
    with approval. The United States District Court for the Western District
    of North Carolina has required that “in any asbestos case, a plaintiff must
    ‘(1) identify an asbestos-containing product for which a defendant is
    responsible, (2) prove that he has suffered damages, and (3) prove that
    defendant’s asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in
    causing his damages.’” Mattox testified inconsistently in his depositions
    and could not recall whether he worked with Georgia-Pacific or
    Durabound joint compounds. Since Plaintiff cannot create a genuine
    issue of material fact through Mattox's own testimony, Defendant's
129 Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.




                                                                            96
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H

    The Fourth Circuit, applying North Carolina law, has cited to Lohrmann
    with approval. The United States District Court for the Western District
    of North Carolina has required that “in any asbestos case, a plaintiff must
    ‘(1) identify an asbestos-containing product for which a defendant is
    responsible, (2) prove that he has suffered damages, and (3) prove that
    defendant’s asbestos-containing product was a substantial factor in
    causing his damages.’” While Mattox identified working with a Goulds
    pump, there was no evidence as to the frequency with which he worked
130 with this pump.

    Plaintiff presents evidence that Holmes worked on commercial and Navy
    vessels at a shipyard. Defendant asserted the government contractor
    defense and Plaintiff presented no evidence to rebut these assertions.
    Therefore, as to Navy vessles, Defendant's Motion for Summary
    Judgment was granted. As to exposures on commercial ships,
    Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied since the
    government contractor defense is inapplicable to these exposures. Since
    the bare metal defense is an unsettled issue of Virginia law, it was
131 remanded to the transferor court.

    The state of Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and
    proximity” standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos
    cases. Rather, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a
    defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the
    alleged injuries, under traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial
    evidence is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Defendant was
    entitled to summary judgment since Plaintiff failed to controvert
    Defendant's evidence that asbestos-containing Micarta panels were not
132 approved for use on Navy ships.




                                                                               97
                                                                     MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H


    The state of Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and
    proximity” standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos
    cases. Rather, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a
    defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the
    alleged injuries, under traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial
    evidence is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to
    controvert Defendant's evidence that asbestos-containing Micarta panels
    were not approved for use on Navy ships. Since International Paper
133 supplied these panels, it was entitled to summary judgment.


    The state of Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and
    proximity” standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos
    cases. Rather, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a
    defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the
    alleged injuries, under traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial
    evidence is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff presented
    the deposition of Tatem, who worked with Jacobs. Tatem testified that
    Waco was one of the insulation contractors at Norshipco. He testified
    that he worked around the Waco contractors and that Jacobs would
    have done the same things that he did, although he could not recall any
    specific time or any specific project that Waco employees worked on.
    Also, Tatem did not know what products these Waco employees worked
    with. Accordingly, as there was insufficient evidence that Jacobs worked
    around WACO insulators working with asbestos-containing products,
134 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.




                                                                              98
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H

    The state of Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and
    proximity” standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos
    cases. Rather, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a
    defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the
    alleged injuries, under traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial
    evidence is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Defendant was
    entitled to summary judgment since Plaintiff failed to controvert
    Defendant's evidence that asbestos-containing Micarta panels were not
135 approved for use on Navy ships.


    The state of Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and
    proximity” standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos
    cases. Rather, under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a
    defendant’s actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the
    alleged injuries, under traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial
    evidence is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to
    controvert Defendant's evidence that asbestos-containing Micarta panels
    were not approved for use on Navy ships. Since International Paper
136 supplied these panels, it was entitled to summary judgment.

    Defendant, a shareholder in the worksite who took on a safety
    consultant role, was entitled to summary judgment on whether they
    undertook to provide a safe workplace. However, Defendant was not
    entitled to summary judgment on statute of limitations, as Plaintiffs
    raised an issue of fact as to post-1979 exposure to asbestos.
    Additionally, Plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact as to
137 whether Defendant negligently inspected the premises.




                                                                               99
                                                                      MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H

    Defendant presented evidence that the Army approved specifications for
    the trucks which AM General manufactured, but presented no evidence
    that these specifications dealt with warnings. Accordingly, Defendant's
138 Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.


    As to the government contractor defense, Defendant failed to present
    evidence that the Army approved reasonably precise specifications as to
    warnings. Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant's personnel
    constructed warnings for use on their products. As to the sophisticated
    user defense, Pennsylvania has not explicitly recognized this defense for
    failure to warn claims premised on strict liability. Moreover, even if this
    defense was recognized in Pennsylvania for strict liability claims, Plaintiff
    has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Army or
139 Defendants had greater knowledge about the dangers of asbestos.


    Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Hoffeditz testified that he worked with and was exposed to asbestos in
    hundreds of Cummins engines. As to the government contractor
    defense, Defendant presented evidence that the Army approved
    specifications for certain models of trucks with Cummins engines, but not
    the trucks Hoffeditz worked with. As to the sophisticated user defense,
    Pennsylvania has not explicitly recognized this defense for failure to warn
    claims premised on strict liability. Moreover, even if this defense was
    recognized in Pennsylvania for strict liability claims, Plaintiff has raised a
    genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Army or Defendants had
140 greater knowledge about the dangers of asbestos.




                                                                              100
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H
    Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Plaintiff presented evidence that Victor gaskets were present at
    Hoffeditz's worksite, but presented no evidence that he worked with
    these gaskets. Accordingly, Defendant was entitled to summary
141 judgment.

    Pennsylvania recognized the product line exception to the general rule of
    non-successor liability. Detroit Diesel acquired a division of General
    Motors in 1988. Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in engines
    manufactured by GM and asserted that Detroit Diesel was liable as a
    successor. Since it was GM's bankruptcy in 2009 and not the sale of
    GM's division to Detroit Diesel which destroyed plaintiff's remedies
    against GM, the product line exception did not apply and Detroit Diesel
142 was entitled to summary judgment.

    Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. As
    to the failure to warn claim, a finished product manufacturer can be held
    liable if the manufacturer had a duty to warn of the defect in the product
    and if the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer.
    Because Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
    Ford knew that its vehicles required asbestos-containing brakes, Ford
    had a duty to warn of the dangers of asbestos. As to product
    identification, Plaintiff presented evidence that Mr. Hoffeditz performed
    numerous brakes jobs on Ford vehicles and that several of these were
143 first time brake jobs.

    Pennsylvania follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Hoffeditz testified that he worked with EIS brakes, for which Standard
    Motor is liable, but he was unable to definitively testify that these brakes
    contained asbestos. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary
144 Judgment was granted.




                                                                            101
                                                                    MDL-875 Decisions

                                          H


    Alabama law applied to exposures at various Alabama power plants and
    maritime law applied to exposures on a Navy vessel on navigable waters.
     Alabama has not adopted a specific standard for asbestos cases, but in
    products liability cases, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the
    identity of a manufacturer may be proven by circumstantial, but not
    speculative evidence. The substantial contributing factor test applies
    under maritime law. For the Alabama and maritime law exposures,
    Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr.
145 Lewis was exposed to asbestos from a Westinghouse turbine.


    California adheres to the "substantial contributing factor" test with
    frequency, regularity, and proximity as relevant factors although not
    determinative. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
    since the parties agreed that Mr. Smith worked with Defendant's pumps
    and co-workers testified that the pumps contained asbestos. Plaintiff's
    expert report was admissibe to survive summary judgment as to
    causation. The issue of the bare metal defense is unsettled in California
    and is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. Therefore,
146 this Court remanded that issue to the transferor court.




                                                                            102
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H




     The Supreme Court of Mississippi has recognized the learned
    intermediary defense in that “a manufacturer’s duty to warn may be
    discharged by providing information to a third person upon whom it can
    reasonably rely to communicate the information to the ultimate users of
    the product or those who will be exposed to its hazardous effects."
    Where a defendant is able to establish that the intermediary knew of the
    dangers of the product at issue, that defendant is relieved of any duty to
    warn. As Defendant failed to show that it provided warnings to the Navy
    and because Plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to
    whether CBS had superior knowledge than the Navy about the dangers
    of asbestos and therefore controverted Defendant's assertion that it was
    reasonable for CBS to rely on the Navy to warn Mr. Dalton about the
    dangers of asbestos, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was
    denied as to the learned intermediary defense. Defendant's Motion was
    denied as to the government contractor defense since the affidavits
147 submitted by Defendant were controverted by Plaintiff.

    Mississippi follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Mississippi courts have not examined the bare metal defense as applied
    to a manufacuturer of non-asbestos-containing products and therefore,
    the Court remanded that issue to the transferor court with the
    suggestion that the transferor court transfer the case to Mississippi.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as to product
    identification since Mr. Dalton testified that he worked with Crane Co.
    valves and that the components on the valves contained asbestos.
    Defendant's Motion was denied as to the government contractor
    defense since the affidavits submitted by Defendant were controverted
148 by Plaintiff.




                                                                          103
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

    Mississippi follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Mississippi courts have not examined the bare metal defense as applied
    to a manufacuturer of non-asbestos-containing products and therefore,
    the Court remanded that issue to the transferor court with the
    suggestion that the transferor court transfer the case to Mississippi.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as to product
    identification since Mr. Dalton testified that he was exposed to and
    breathed in asbestos dust from Foster Wheeler steam generators.
    Defendant's Motion was granted as to conspiracy, wanton, willful, and
    intentional conduct since Plaintiff presented no evidence to support
149 these claims.

    Mississippi follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test.
    Mississippi courts have not examined the bare metal defense as applied
    to a manufacuturer of non-asbestos-containing products and therefore,
    the Court remanded that issue to the transferor court with the
    suggestion that the transferor court transfer the case to Mississippi.
    Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied as to product
    identification since Mr. Dalton testified that he worked with Warren
    pumps and that the insulation on the pumps contained asbestos.
    Defendant's Motion was granted as to conspiracy, wanton, willful, and
    intentional conduct since Plaintiff presented no evidence to support
150 these claims.

    New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. The
    Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as Plaintiff
    failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Lewis
    worked at the Manville plant when ACL supplied asbestos to the plant
    and failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr.
151 Lewis was exposed to asbestos manufactured by ACL.




                                                                          104
                                                                  MDL-875 Decisions

                                        H

    Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) was denied
    since the 120 time limit for service of process does not apply to foreign
    corporations. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P.
    12(b)(2) is denied as several New Jersey courts have previously
    determined that ACL is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey and
152 that same evidence was presented by ACL in the instant case.

    New Jersey follows the "frequency, regularity, and proximity" test. The
    Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment since Plaintiff
    presented a purchase order establishing that a shipment of Bell Asbestos
    Mines asbestos went to Johns-Manville’s Quality Control Department
    Packing & Friction Division on January 1, 1965 and Elizabeth Rau, Mr.
    Lewis' coworker, testified that Mr. Lewis worked in the friction
    department. In addition, Mr. Lewis’ testified that he was exposed to
153 asbestos at the Manville plant in 1965.

    Under New Jersey law, there is a “heeding presumption” in products
    liability failure to warn cases that the plaintiff would have followed an
    adequate warning had one been provided. In order to rebut this
    presumption, the defendant must produce evidence that such a warning
    would not have been heeded. While the decedent's brother speculated
    that his brother would not have changed his behavior had he been
    warned about the dangers of asbestos, this evidence failed to
    conclusively establish what steps would have been taken by Mr. Lewis
154 had he been provided warnings about the dangers of asbestos.




                                                                          105
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    These are "take-home" asbestos cases. Under Virginia law, it is unclear
    whether Defendant, a Shipyard at which asbestos was used widely, owed
    a duty to the family members and household members of its employees,
    such that the Shipyard could be liable for family members' injuries
    allegedly sustained by exposure to asbestos transported home from
    work on the clothing of employees. There is a split of authority about this
    issue around the country, and no Virginia appellate court has ruled on
    the issue. This Court therefore declines to decide the issue, and will deny
155 the motion to dismiss without prejudice.


    These are "take-home" asbestos cases. Under Virginia law, it is unclear
    whether Defendant, a Shipyard at which asbestos was used widely, owed
    a duty to the family members and household members of its employees,
    such that the Shipyard could be liable for family members' injuries
    allegedly sustained by exposure to asbestos transported home from
    work on the clothing of employees. There is a split of authority about this
    issue around the country, and no Virginia appellate court has ruled on
    the issue. This Court therefore declines to decide the issue, but will
    remand the case to the transferor court (the E.D. Va.), which has more
    familiarity with Virginia law and policy and can itself decide whether to
156 certify the question to the Supreme Court of Virginia.




                                                                           106
                                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H




    These are "take-home" asbestos cases. Under Virginia law, it is unclear
    whether Defendant, a Shipyard at which asbestos was used widely, owed
    a duty to the family members and household members of its employees,
    such that the Shipyard could be liable for family members' injuries
    allegedly sustained by exposure to asbestos transported home from
    work on the clothing of employees. As a general matter, the state of
    Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos cases. Rather,
    under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant’s actions were
    both the actual and proximate cause of the alleged injuries, under
    traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
    survive summary judgment. However, there was no admissible evidence
    in these cases that showed that plaintiffs were exposed to Shipyard
    asbestos. Self-serving affidavits by affiants that have since died and are
    not subject to cross-examination are inadmissible hearsay. Also
    inadmissible are depositions from prior cases of deponents who have
    since died and cannot be cross-examined, when the defendant in the
    current case was not a party to the earlier case or present at the earlier
    deposition (and therefore has had no opportunity to cross-examine the
157 deponent).




                                                                               107
                                                                       MDL-875 Decisions

                                           H



    These are "take-home" asbestos cases. Under Virginia law, it is unclear
    whether Defendant, a Shipyard at which asbestos was used widely, owed
    a duty to the family members and household members of its employees,
    such that the Shipyard could be liable for family members' injuries
    allegedly sustained by exposure to asbestos transported home from
    work on the clothing of employees. As a general matter, the state of
    Virginia has not adopted the “frequency, regularity, and proximity”
    standard that is utilized by many jurisdictions in asbestos cases. Rather,
    under Virginia law, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant’s actions were
    both the actual and proximate cause of the alleged injuries, under
    traditional tort liability principles. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
    survive summary judgment. In these cases, if it is found that the Shipyard
    owes a duty to plaintiff under Virginia law, then plaintiffs have produced
    sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
    whether they were injured by asbestos brought home from the Shipyard
158 on the clothes of Shipyard employees.


    Because Defendant failed to show that the state ceded the land to the
    federal government or consented to the federal government taking
159 control, there was no federal enclave jurisdiction.


    The rule of unanimity requires all defendants to agree to removal. Since
    three defendants did not unequivocally agree to remove the case,
160 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand was granted.




                                                                               108
                                                                   MDL-875 Decisions

                                         H

    The Court rejected those cases requiring a seemingly “heightened”
    showing for removal under the federal officer removal statute, and held
    that a defense is colorable for the purpose of determining jurisdiction
    under the statute if the defendant invoking it identifies facts which,
    viewed in the light most favourable to the defendant, would establish a
161 complete defense at trial.

    Defendant failed to show that Breedlove was a licensee. Plaintiff raised a
    genuine issue of material fact as to whether Breedlove was exposed to
    asbestos on Defendant's property and whether Defendant breached a
162 duty of care owed to Breedlove.

    As to Category I Defendants, Motion to Remand granted since
    Defendants failed to remove with one year and failed to satisfy the
    equitable exception. As to Category II Defendants, Motion to Remand
    granted since Plaintiff did not fraudulently join Defendants in order to
    avoid federal jurisdiction. As to Category III Defendants, Motion to
163 Remand denied because Plaintiffs' claims invoke OCSLA jurisdiction.


    Plaintiff's claim is barred by New Jersey's Workers' Compensation Act
    since Defendant dual role as both employer and manufacturer does not
164 entitle Plaintiff to a claim independent of the NJWCA.
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173


                                                                           109
          MDL-875 Decisions

      H
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206


                110
          MDL-875 Decisions

      H
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239


                111
          MDL-875 Decisions

      H
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272


                112
          MDL-875 Decisions

      H
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305


                113
          MDL-875 Decisions

      H
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322




                114

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:9/29/2011
language:English
pages:114