Tennessee Supreme Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 12 asbestos decisions from the Tennessee Supreme Court (1990–2021). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Tennessee
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed in part the Court of Appeals, reinstated the trial court's summary judgment for the equipment manufacturers on failure-to-warn claims about asbestos products made and sold by others, and remanded, so the Coffmans lost on this issue.
• Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2015). The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the trial judge wrongly granted CSX a new trial on liability and that the plaintiff's expert proof on causation was admissible. It affirmed the Court of Appeals as modified and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
• Segroves v. Union Carbide (2015). The Tennessee Supreme Court (through its Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel) reversed the trial court's summary judgment for employer Union Carbide and Martin Marietta Energy System and remanded the employee Jimmy Segroves's asbestosis claim for further proceedings.
• Lively EX rel. Lively v. Union Carbide Corporation (2013). The Tennessee Supreme Court (through its Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel) affirmed the trial court: the widow, Armethia Lively, recovered only funeral expenses from Union Carbide because the 1982 date of injury capped her benefits below her husband's $90,000 settlement.
• Kelley v. Union Carbide Corporation (2011). The Tennessee Supreme Court (through its Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel) affirmed the trial court's award of death benefits to the widow, Naomi Kelley, rejecting Union Carbide's argument that the 1991 settlement barred her claim, and upheld the trial court's method of calculating the weekly benefit rate.
• Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. (2011). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding North Brothers could be sued in strict liability and that the jury instruction was reversible error, and reversed the trial court's judgment for North Brothers and remanded for a new trial in favor of widow Evelyn Nye.
• Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company (2008). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for Alcoa, and remanded the estate's claim against Alcoa for further proceedings.
• Correll v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2006). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's rulings for DuPont on subrogation against the wrongful death recovery, the Social Security offset, the Medicare lien and attorneys' fees, and remanded for the trial court to allocate the portion of the recovery attributable to Mrs. Correll's loss of consortium claim and to hear proof of medical expenses.
• Lynch v. CF Industries, Inc. (2004). The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the Appeals Panel's findings and affirmed the trial court's denial of death benefits to Wanda Lynch, the widow, in favor of employer CF Industries, finding the worker died of congestive heart failure unrelated to his employment.
• Mackie v. Young Sales Corp. (2001). The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the Appeals Panel's findings, held that James Mackie's voluntary retirement did not bar workers' compensation benefits, and affirmed the trial court's award for Dorothy Mackie based on the maximum weekly rate, against Young Sales Corporation.
• Ingram v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (1994). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Ingram's workers' compensation claim, held he was entitled to employer-paid medical benefits for periodic pulmonary exams and related treatment, found his disability claim not yet ripe, and remanded to determine the medical benefits due.
• Potts v. Celotex Corp. (1990). Answering questions certified by the Sixth Circuit, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the one-year limitations period did not bar Elizabeth Potts's mesothelioma claim against Celotex and the other asbestos product defendants, so the plaintiff prevailed on the limitations question.