Texas Court of Appeals: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 67 asbestos decisions from the Texas Court of Appeals (1988–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Texas
• Kind of court: State appeals court

Decisions

• Burford v. Howmet Aerospace, Inc. (14th District, 2024). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment for Alcoa (Howmet Aerospace) and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the Burford family.
• Fisher v. BNSF Railway Company (2nd District, 2022). The court affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway, holding that Alan Fisher's 2006 release barred his widow June's FELA suit over his asbestos-related lung cancer.
• Payne v. BNSF Ry. Co. (2nd District, 2022). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF, holding that Harrah's 2017 release barred his daughter's FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Neely EX rel. Estate OF Goehring v. Union Carbide Corporation (14th District, 2021). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment for Union Carbide, so the Goehring children's wrongful death claim failed.
• Andrews v. John Crane, Inc. (14th District, 2020). The appeals court affirmed that maritime law applied and that JCI did not waive it, but reversed the take-nothing judgment for John Crane, Inc. because the trial court wrongly barred recovery of Pepper's pre-death pain and suffering, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v. Adkins (1st District, 2020). The court of appeals affirmed the MDL court's orders: it denied Massachusetts Bay's special appearance in the Adkins litigation, denied the Adkins and Able plaintiffs' motions to remand, and granted the other insurers' special appearances.
• Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v. Adkins (1st District, 2020). The court ordered the parties to file post-argument briefs on the proof needed to show a malignant mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancer diagnosis under section 90.010(a)(3), whether the MDL court must make a written finding, and the standard of review; it decided nothing else.
• Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Dickson (5th District, 2019). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the Dickson family against Bell Helicopter Textron and rendered a take-nothing judgment, because there was no evidence of the gross negligence elements.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Torres (13th District, 2019). The court affirmed the judgment for Oscar and Dora Torres against Union Carbide Corporation, but reversed the judgment against Garlock's successor GST Settlement Facility and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Garlock.
• Jefferson County v. Farris (2018). The court of appeals reversed only the denial of the plea as to exemplary damages, rendering judgment dismissing that claim against Jefferson County, and otherwise affirmed the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction, so Mrs. Farris's claims proceed.
• Jefferson County v. Farris (1st District, 2018). The court of appeals rendered judgment dismissing Ellarene Farris's wrongful-death and survival claims against Jefferson County, reversing the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction, because the County did not receive Tort Claims Act notice within six months of the last exposure; one justice dissented.
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Rogers (5th District, 2017). The court of appeals overruled Goodyear's challenges to the gross negligence and causation findings but sustained its challenge to the exemplary damages cap calculation, suggesting that the Rogers family remit $1,740,000 of the $2,890,000 award; if they do, the judgment is modified to $1,150,000 and affirmed, and if not, it is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
• In re EI DU Pont DE Nemours and Company (9th District, 2015). The court of appeals conditionally granted DuPont's mandamus petition, holding the trial court abused its discretion by granting Whisnant's estate a new trial after the jury found for DuPont, and expecting the trial court to vacate that order and enter judgment on the verdict.
• Hearn v. Snapka (13th District, 2012). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for attorney Kathryn Snapka, ruling against former client Charlotte Hearn on her legal malpractice claim.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske (2012). The en banc court affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, so the Emmites' asbestosis wrongful-death claims could go forward.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (1st District, 2012). The en banc court affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, so the Emmites' wrongful death claims could go forward; Union Carbide lost.
• In re Kansas City Southern Railway Company (14th District, 2011). The court of appeals denied Kansas City Southern Railway's petition for writ of mandamus, leaving in place the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss the employees' claims.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (1st District, 2011). The court of appeals affirmed the MDL pretrial court's order denying Union Carbide's motion and renewed motion to dismiss, ruling for the Emmites, though it found Dr. Prince's reports did not meet the pulmonary function testing requirement.
• Darden v. Union Carbide Corporation (14th District, 2010). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide, holding the Dardens' 1990 release barred the family's gross negligence and exemplary damages claims and supported Union Carbide's indemnity counterclaim; the Darden family lost.
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Bostic (5th District, 2010). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for the Bostic family and rendered judgment that they take nothing from Georgia-Pacific, because the evidence of causation was legally insufficient.
• Smith v. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. (2nd District, 2010). Affirmed the no-evidence summary judgment for Kelly-Moore Paint Company against the Smiths, because they offered no evidence of a minimum threshold dose of chrysotile that increases mesothelioma risk.
• Uop, LLC v. Kozak (1st District, 2010). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's refusal to dismiss the Kozak Plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim against UOP for lack of a certificate of merit, affirmed the rest of the order, and remanded with instructions to dismiss that claim; UOP won and the Kozak Plaintiffs lost.
• In re Wilhite (2009). The court of appeals denied the Wilhites' petition for mandamus, so the judge stayed on the case and Alcoa prevailed over the Wilhites, with three justices dissenting.
• Ross v. Union Carbide Corporation (14th District, 2009). The en banc court affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide, holding that the 1993 release signed by Homer and Marjorie Ross barred the survivors' exemplary-damages and loss-of-consortium claims, and it overruled Perez v. Todd Shipyards.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Smith (1st District, 2009). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Oliver and Peggy Smith and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Union Carbide and Hexion, holding there was no evidence of Union Carbide's control and that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy barred the claims against Hexion.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (14th District, 2008). The court of appeals reversed the exemplary damages judgment for Louise Altimore against Exxon Mobil and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding the evidence legally insufficient to show malice.
• Ford Motor Company v. Miller (14th District, 2008). The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $10,000,000 jury verdict and rendered judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller and that John Roland had no compensable injury or damages evidence.
• Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (3rd District, 2008). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal and remanded, holding the Texas successor-asbestos-liability statute unconstitutional as applied to Satterfield's pending claim; Satterfield won, Crown Cork lost, and the Chief Justice dissented.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (5th District, 2007). The appeals court reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed Mrs. Behringer no legal duty.
• Alcoa, Inc. v. Behringer (5th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Barbara and Leroy Behringer and rendered judgment that they take nothing against Alcoa, because Alcoa owed no legal duty.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (14th District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon owed her no duty before 1972 because take-home asbestos risk was not foreseeable to it until then.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Stephens (2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment on the jury verdict for Fred and Betty Stephens and rendered judgment for Georgia-Pacific, because the expert causation testimony was legally insufficient.
• Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Stephens (1st District, 2007). The court of appeals reversed the judgment for Fred and Betty Stephens against Georgia-Pacific and rendered judgment for Georgia-Pacific, because the expert causation testimony was legally insufficient.
• Brooks v. Armco, Inc. (6th District, 2006). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Armco, rejecting the plaintiffs' challenges to jury selection and the Batson-Edmonson hearing.
• Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Altimore (14th District, 2006). The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for Louise Altimore and rendered a take-nothing judgment, holding Exxon Mobil owed her no duty during the relevant period.
• Gilcrease v. Garlock, Inc. (8th District, 2006). The court of appeals held that the settlement credits were correctly applied to the actual damages but could not offset the $1 million exemplary damages award; it nonetheless reversed the take-nothing judgment for Garlock and remanded with instructions to transfer the suit to Bexar County for a new trial because the El Paso venue was improper.
• In re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (3rd District, 2006). The court of appeals denied the Fluor Defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion, leaving in place the MDL pretrial court's order remanding the case to the Travis County trial court; the plaintiffs prevailed.
• Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bailey (9th District, 2006). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the Baileys and rendered judgment for Mobil, finding no legally sufficient evidence that asbestos exposure at Mobil's facilities caused James Bailey's lung cancer.
• Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2006). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, holding the 2003 Texas successor-liability statute was constitutional as applied and barred Barbara Robinson's claims against it.
• Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores (13th District, 2004). The court of appeals overruled all nine of Borg-Warner's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment for Arturo Flores, including the $103,200 compensatory award and $50,000 punitive award.
• In re Roc (4th District, 2004). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgments for all defendants and against the plaintiff workers and their family members, who had alleged asbestosis or silicosis from paints and coatings at two nuclear power plants.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (9th District, 2004). The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad, which favored the defendants over the plaintiff parents.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Shelton (12th District, 2003). The court of appeals modified the judgment to give Brown & Root a full $3,951,900 settlement credit, leaving it liable for $64,100, and otherwise affirmed Mrs. Shelton's judgment, including the gross negligence finding.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2003). The court of appeals granted Sears' mandamus petition and directed the trial court to vacate its April 1 and May 12, 2003 discovery orders, which were overbroad, against the Fuerstenau plaintiffs.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Moore (6th District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against Brown & Root, holding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's malice finding and the $166,000 exemplary damages award for Nancy Moore and the heirs.
• Payne v. BNSF Railway Company (2nd District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway Company against Donna Payne, holding that Neil Harrah's 2017 release barred her FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (11th District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because directed verdicts were otherwise proper.
• Gilcrease v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. (4th District, 2001). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Tesoro Petroleum, holding Alaska's ten-year statute of repose barred the Gilcreases' mesothelioma claims brought in Texas.
• In re Kellogg-Brown & Root, Inc. (12th District, 2001). The court of appeals conditionally granted Kellogg-Brown & Root's mandamus petition, ruling the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to let the company withdraw or amend deemed admissions, so plaintiff Fambrough lost that ruling.
• North American Refractory Co. v. Easter (13th District, 1999). The court of appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Moss's estate, Easter, Roberts and the two spouses against North American Refractory Co. (NARCO), including the $1.5 million punitive award.