No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Asbestos Case Law

Court decisions in asbestos cases from across the country: 4,160 decisions from 48 states and 205 courts, 1971 to 2025. Each case page gives our plain-English summary of the decision, the people and the exposure the court described (the work, the places, the years, the products), the defendants, and the full opinion.

You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a review

Search the case-law library

Search by case name, company or defendant, court, or worksite.

Browse by state

Browse by job, product and disease

Jobs

Industries and workplaces

Products

Asbestos fibers

Diseases

Or see every topic and every court.

  • Asbestos Bankruptcies249 cases. Disputes arising when an asbestos defendant goes into bankruptcy, from the automatic stay on lawsuits to the trusts and injunctions that channel claims to them.
  • Asbestos Trust Claims in Court123 cases. How claims against asbestos bankruptcy trusts affect lawsuits against companies that are still in business, including disclosure rules, credits, and fault allocated to bankrupt companies.
  • Causation1,200 cases. Whether asbestos, and a particular defendant's asbestos, caused the person's disease. Courts differ on how much exposure must be shown and what experts may say about it.
  • Choice of Law374 cases. Which state's law applies when a person was exposed in one state, lives in another, and sued in a third.
  • Compensatory Damages350 cases. How much the injured person or family may recover for medical costs, lost income, pain and suffering, and other losses, and when a court may change a verdict.
  • Design Defect279 cases. A claim that the product itself was unreasonably dangerous as designed, for example because it contained asbestos when safer materials were available.
  • Employer and Contractor Liability, and Workers' Compensation449 cases. Whether a worker can sue their own employer or a general contractor, or is limited to workers' compensation, and how compensation affects suits against other companies.
  • Expert Testimony785 cases. Whether a doctor, scientist or industrial hygienist may testify, and whether their opinions are reliable enough for a jury to hear.
  • FELA Railroad Claims66 cases. Claims by railroad workers against their employers under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which has its own rules on negligence, causation and damages.
  • Failure to Warn599 cases. Whether a company had a duty to warn about asbestos hazards, whether its warnings were adequate, and whether a warning would have made a difference.
  • Fault, Apportionment and Settlement Credits480 cases. How responsibility is divided among the companies found liable for someone's asbestos disease, and how settlements with some of them reduce what the others owe.
  • Fear of Cancer and Medical Monitoring93 cases. Claims by people exposed to asbestos who do not yet have a disabling disease, such as fear of developing cancer or the cost of medical monitoring.
  • Federal Preemption67 cases. Whether a federal law displaces state-law asbestos claims, as with claims about locomotive parts under the Locomotive Inspection Act.
  • Government Contractor Defense and Removal310 cases. Defenses for companies that made equipment to government specifications, and their right to move such cases from state to federal court.
  • Insurance Coverage245 cases. Disputes between companies and their insurers over who pays for asbestos claims and how losses spread across decades of insurance policies.
  • Loss of Consortium241 cases. A spouse's (and in some states a child's) claim for the loss of companionship, care and support caused by a family member's asbestos disease.
  • Maritime Law and Navy Ships344 cases. When federal maritime law applies to asbestos exposure aboard ships or in shipyards, and the special rules for seamen, longshore and shipyard workers, and Navy veterans.
  • Personal Jurisdiction271 cases. Whether a court in a particular state has power over an out-of-state company, which decides where an asbestos lawsuit can be filed.
  • Premises Owner Liability231 cases. Whether the owner of a plant, refinery or building is responsible to contractors' workers and visitors exposed to asbestos on its property.
  • Product Identification1,060 cases. Proof that ties the injured person's asbestos exposure to a particular defendant, usually from the person's own testimony, coworkers' memories, and records.
  • Punitive Damages291 cases. Whether a company can be made to pay damages meant to punish it, which usually requires proof that it acted with malice or conscious disregard of a known danger.
  • Settlements and Releases203 cases. Disputes over whether a settlement was reached, what and whom a release covers, and whether settling an earlier asbestos claim bars a later one.
  • Sophisticated User and Intermediary Defenses87 cases. Defenses arguing that a company did not have to warn a worker directly because the worker, or a knowledgeable buyer such as the employer, already knew of the danger.
  • Statute of Limitations381 cases. The deadline for filing a lawsuit. In asbestos cases the clock usually starts when the person learned, or should have learned, of their asbestos disease, not when the exposure happened decades earlier, but the exact trigger varies by state.
  • Statute of Repose141 cases. An outer limit on lawsuits that runs from a fixed event, such as the completion of a building or the first sale of a product, whether or not anyone has been injured yet.
  • Successor Liability210 cases. Whether a company that bought, merged with or reorganized another company is responsible for that company's asbestos products.
  • Take-Home Exposure238 cases. Whether a company owed a duty to family members exposed to asbestos dust that a worker brought home on clothing, in hair, or in the car.
  • The Bare-Metal Defense218 cases. Whether makers of pumps, valves, boilers and turbines are responsible for asbestos gaskets, packing and insulation made by other companies but used with their equipment.
  • Trial Procedure and Discovery2,075 cases. Rulings on how asbestos cases are run: discovery, sanctions, consolidating cases for trial, jury instructions, and new trials.
  • Venue, Removal and Transfer496 cases. Which court an asbestos case belongs in: the right county, state or federal court, and whether a case should be moved, sent back, or dismissed in favor of another forum.
  • Wrongful Death and Survival760 cases. The two kinds of claims that can follow a death from an asbestos disease: the survivors' claim for their own losses, and the person's own claim, which survives through the estate.

Key decisions

U.S. Supreme Court

  • Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (2019). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's judgment vacating summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers (Air and Liquid Systems, CBS, Foster Wheeler, Ingersoll Rand, General Electric) and sent the case back so the District Court could reconsider under the Court's own duty-to-warn test, which favored the veterans' families.
  • Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (2012). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit and the District Court's summary judgment for Railroad Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp, holding the Corson estate's state-law claims preempted by the Locomotive Inspection Act.
  • CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley (2009). The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which had upheld Hensley's $5 million jury verdict against CSX, and remanded because the trial court wrongly refused CSX's requested fear-of-cancer jury instruction.
  • Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers (2003). The Supreme Court affirmed the West Virginia trial court's judgments for the six asbestosis claimants against Norfolk & Western Railway, upholding both the fear-of-cancer damages instruction and the refusal to apportion damages to other exposures.
  • Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. (1999). The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's judgment upholding a mandatory limited-fund class certification and settlement of asbestos personal-injury claims against Fibreboard, ruling for the objecting class members (petitioners) against Fibreboard and its insurers, and remanded.
  • Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997). The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's decision vacating the class certification and the antisuit injunction, so the objecting class members won and the settling asbestos defendants and class counsel lost.
  • Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley (1997). The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that Metro-North, the railroad, was not liable for Buckley's emotional distress claim or for his claim to lump-sum medical monitoring costs, and remanded for further proceedings.

State supreme courts, most recent

  • Jolly v. Fisher Controls International, LLC (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, upholding the trial court's new trial nisi additur for the Jollys and its partial setoff of settlements, and remanded for Fisher and Crosby to accept the additur or elect a new trial.
  • Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, the court of appeals' decision upholding summary judgment for Covil Corporation (through its receiver) against Penn National, which had to indemnify Covil for the Rollins asbestos settlement.
  • Carpin v. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Supreme Court, 2024). The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation and Clifton Associates, holding the plaintiff's wrongful death and negligence claims were barred by the twenty-year statute of repose and that the statute did not violate Article 7 of the Vermont Constitution.
  • Ripple v. CBS Corporation (Florida Supreme Court, 2024). The Florida Supreme Court held that Jennifer Ripple, who married the decedent after his asbestos exposure and diagnosis, can recover as a "surviving spouse" under section 768.21(2), approved the Fifth District's Domino's decision, and quashed the Fourth District's ruling against her (which had favored the defendants).
  • Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling for Edwards (the estate of Stewart) against Scapa Waycross on causation, and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted on additur and reallocation of settlement proceeds.
  • Pete v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Company, LLC (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2023). The Louisiana Supreme Court held the jury abused its discretion in awarding $9.8 million in general damages against Ports America, reduced that award to $5,000,000, and entered total judgment of $5,551,020.70 for Pete, affirming the rest.
  • Wright v. 3M Co. (Washington Supreme Court, 2023). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing ExxonMobil's requested § 343A "known or obvious" jury instruction, so the jury verdict for Wright's estate against ExxonMobil stood.
  • Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2023). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Department of Workers' Claims, not the Board of Claims, has jurisdiction over Roger Hall's workers' compensation claim against the Letcher County Board of Education, so Hall prevailed.
  • Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (Delaware Supreme Court, 2023). The Delaware Supreme Court refused Hennessy Industries' petition for an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court's denial of summary judgment, so the case against Hennessy continues for plaintiff Estrada.
  • Galier v. Murco Wall Products, Inc. (Oklahoma Supreme Court, 2022). The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court, holding Oklahoma has specific personal jurisdiction over Murco, so Galier's judgment against Murco stands.

Recent decisions

  • Thibodeaux v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Cynthia Thibodeaux as a plaintiff.
  • Losurdo v. Viacomcbs Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2025). The court denied GE's and Westinghouse's summary judgment motions on duty to warn, causation, and the government contractor defense, but granted them on punitive damages and loss of consortium, so the Losurdo plaintiffs won most issues and lost those two damages claims.
  • Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2025). The court granted Canal's summary judgment motion in full and Interstate's in part, ruling for Canal and Interstate on the Smith and Murray lawsuits and against Interstate on the Galier lawsuit, so Berkshire's contribution claim survived only as to Galier against Interstate.
  • Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Pelnor's motion: Pelnor may supplement its crossclaim with a bad faith claim against First State for events on or after January 20, 2025, but not for events between September 4, 2024 and January 20, 2025.
  • Prude v. Fidelity and Casualty Insurance Company OF New York (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, and Travelers' joinder in part, dismissing the surviving plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against Avondale and Travelers with prejudice.
  • JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLP (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2025). The court granted the motion of Simmons Hanly Conroy and its attorneys and staff to dismiss J-M Manufacturing's RICO counts for failure to plead a distinct enterprise, and dismissed the state law counts without prejudice.
  • Maffei v. Burnham (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2025). The First Department affirmed the jury-verdict judgment for plaintiffs Romeo and Rosa Maffei against Burnham LLC, including compensatory, consortium and punitive awards, and dismissed the appeal from the post-trial order as subsumed in the judgment.
  • Keller v. Exxonmobil Oil Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2025). The court excluded the testimony of plaintiff's causation expert Dr. Kradin and granted summary judgment to defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, dismissing Keller's Jones Act asbestos lung cancer claim; the other expert motions were denied as moot.
  • Long v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2025). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding Richard Long's case to Oregon state court, rejecting Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal and admiralty jurisdiction arguments.
  • LeBOEUF v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2025). The court granted plaintiff Nolan LeBoeuf Jr.'s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendant Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) is not entitled to Boyle or Yearsley government contractor immunity against his failure-to-warn and failure-to-protect claims.

Browse A–Z

Cite this page

“Asbestos Case Law.” AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/cases.

ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.

Talk with an asbestos lawyer

Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a free case review

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.