Washington Supreme Court
Rublee v. Carrier Corp., 192 Wn.2d 190, 428 P.3d 1207 (2018) (Pfizer, Inc. incurred independent, non-derivative liability as an “apparent manufacturer” for injuries arising from asbestos-containing products manufactured by its subsidiary, Quigley Co,. by affixing the Pfizer logo to Quigley products).
Walston v. Boeing Co., 181 Wn.2d 391, 334 P.3d 519 (2014) (evidence indicating substantial risk of worker contracting mesothelioma from work-related exposure to asbestos was insufficient to come within “deliberate injury” exception to exclusivity provision of Industrial Insurance Act).
Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 175 Wn.2d 402, 282 P.3d 1069 (2012) (Clarifying Simonetta and Braaten to not extinguish mask manufacturer’s duty to warn of asbestos hazards arising from cleaning its product although asbestos supplied by third parties).
Simonetta v. Viad Corp., 165 Wn.2d 341, 197 P.3d 127 (2008) (machinery manufacture not liable for asbestos products it did not install or specify on its product).
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 165 Wn.2d 373, 198 P.3d 493 (2008) (manufacturers owed no duty to warn of the danger of exposure to asbestos-containing insulation that was manufactured and supplied by third parties).
Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 138 Wn. App. 222, 156 P.3d 303 (2007), aff'd, 163 Wn.2d 14, 177 P.3d 1122 (2008) (trial court improperly dismissed action by Arkansas mesothelioma against Washington corporation without conditioning dismissal on defendant’s pledge to litigate claim in Arkansas state court).
Washington Court of Appeals
CBS Corp. v. Ulbricht, 79490-6-I, 2020 WL 622940, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2020) (affirming trial court’s reasonableness determination of $4.5 million covenant judgment settlement between mesothelioma victim and oil service contractor).
Leren v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 442 P.3d 273 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019), as amended on denial of reconsideration (Aug. 8, 2019), review denied sub nom.Leren v. Elementis Chemicals, Inc., 194 Wn.2d 1017, 455 P.3d 133 (2020) (Trial court properly found that Elementis Chemical is the corporate successor to Benson Chemical which supplied asbestos fiber to factory where mesothelioma victim worked).
Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc., 74554-9-I, 2018 WL 2418481 (Wash. Ct. App. May 29, 2018), review denied, 192 Wn.2d 1004, 430 P.3d 251 (2018) (judgment on personal injury claim extinguishes subsequent wrongful death action arising out of same injury).
Estate of Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc., 197 Wn. App. 1043 (2017) (employer owed duty of care to protect household members of its asbestos-exposed employees from “take home” exposures and trial court erred in reducing $3.5 million jury awarded to mesothelioma victim exposed while washing husband’s contaminated work clothes).
Kalahar v. Alcoa, Inc., 189 Wn. App. 1043 (2015) (mesothelioma victim failed to establish certain injury to trigger deliberate injury exception to workers compensation immunity).
Ehlert v. Brand Insulations, Inc., 183 Wn. App. 1006 (2014) (contractor who installed asbestos insulation not subject to strict product liability absent evidence that contractor was engaged in business of selling beyond its discrete contracting activity).
Kennedy v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 182 Wn. App. 1031 (2014) (mesothelioma victim who worked around asbestos while serving in the National Guard marshalled sufficient evidence to create a fact issue that he was exposed to asbestos supplied by Tacoma Asbestos supplied asbestos.
Montaney v. J-M Mfg. Co., Inc., 178 Wn. App. 541, 314 P.3d 1144 (2013) (retired water and sewer district worker with mesothelioma whose job duties included repairing and maintaining asbestos concrete (A/C) pipe who could not specifically recall sellers of the pipe created a fact issue based on evidence that the defendant seller was one of several suppliers during the period of the plaintiffs exposure.
Arnold v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 159 Wn. App. 1025 (2011) (shipyard owner has duty to maintain safe workplace for independent insulation contractors and protect family members from “take home” asbestos exposures from work clothes contaminated on its premises).
Payne v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 147 Wn. App. 17, 190 P.3d 102 (2008) (plaintiff could not establish liability under product line successorship doctrine where surviving corporation did continue to sell the predecessor’s product.
Taylor v. Union Carbide Corp., 147 Wn. App. 1017 (2008) (evidence that Union Carbide was one of several asbestos fiber suppliers to manufacturers of joint compound was sufficient to create a fact issue that the mesothelioma victim was exposed to Union Carbide fiber while working around joint compound).
Rochon v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 140 Wn. App. 1008 (2007) (recognizing for the first time that employer owed duty of care to protect household members of its asbestos-exposed employees from “take home” exposure through contaminated work clothes).
Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 125 Wn. App. 1033 (2005) (three-year statute of limitations triggered when mesothelioma victim placed on notice of potential legal. claim).
Fox v. Alcoa, Inc., 130 Wn. App. 1054 (2005) (trial court did not abuse discretion in declining to give adverse inference instruction based on Alcoa’s intentional discovery violation).
Oregon Court of Appeals
McKenzie v. A.W. Chesterson Co., 277 Or. App. 728, 373 P.3d 150 (2016) (“bare metal defense” did not bar strict product liability claim and triable issues existed regarding whether manufacturer expected that replacement parts would likely contain asbestos, precluding summary judgment on strict liability claim).
United States Court of Appeals-Ninth Circuit
Stephens v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 935 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2019) (causation opinions by plaintiff’s experts insufficient to defeat summary judgment where assumptions inadequately supported by evidence).
United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 92 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 1996) (award of costs to defendant following government’s rejection of Offer of Judgment did not include attorney fees where government was not unreasonable in prosecuting claims for violation of Clean Air Act asbestos regulations).
United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 60 F.3d 556 (9th Cir. 1995) (abatement contractor’s renovator’s failure to notify officials of its intent to remove asbestos subjected it to a penalty for only a single violation, not a continuous violation penalty).
