Handley v. Unarco Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that exclusivity provision did not bar common-law claims where employer failed to disclose known danger of asbestos
• holding that exclusivity provision did not bar common law claims where employer failed to disclose known danger of asbestos
• showing that plaintiffs withstood summary judgment by alleging that defendant intended bodily harm and/or death to plaintiffs, that defendant’s conscious purpose was that asbestos would become trapped in their lungs and bodies
• showing that plaintiffs withstood summary judgment by alleging that defendant intended bodily harm and/or death to plaintiffs, that defendant's conscious purpose was that asbestos would become trapped in their lungs and bodies
• “[T]he exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act [are] ‘homologous’ for purposes of judicial construction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).