Florida Supreme Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 7 asbestos decisions from the Florida Supreme Court (1985–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Florida
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Ripple v. CBS Corporation (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).
• DeLisle v. Crane Co. (2018). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision, which had ordered a new trial for R.J. Reynolds (as Lorillard's successor) and a directed verdict for Crane, and remanded for reinstatement of DeLisle's $8 million final judgment.
• Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's reversal and ordered the jury verdict and judgment for William Aubin against Union Carbide reinstated.
• American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (2011). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District, holding that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to the asbestosis plaintiffs, who prevailed over American Optical and the other asbestos defendants.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999). The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question yes and approved the Fourth District's decision upholding the $31 million punitive damages award for Ballard against Owens-Corning.
• Celotex Corp. v. Meehan (1988). The Florida Supreme Court quashed all three Third District decisions: it held Meehan's New York-barred claim was revived by a new New York statute and could proceed, remanded Nance for a significant-relationships determination, and let Colon's Florida-based claim proceed.
• Celotex Corp. v. Copeland (1985). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's approval of market share liability (reinstating dismissal of that theory but allowing Copeland to amend his complaint), and approved the Third District's ruling that the statute of limitations could not be decided by summary judgment, so the Copelands may proceed against the asbestos manufacturers.