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

• Perez v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (1999). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, which had been based on its bankruptcy discharge, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in favor of the decedent's children.
• Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Walters (13th District, 1999). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, entered on a jury verdict of about $8.8 million, for Cecile Walters and the estate of Douglas Walters against Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, overruling all seven of its issues.
• White v. CBS Corp. (3rd District, 1999). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Westinghouse (CBS) and remanded, holding the statute of repose did not bar Pauline White's claims as a matter of law.
• Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Bilder (9th District, 1998). The court of appeals affirmed most of the judgment for Kay and Frank Bilder against Fuller-Austin Insulation, but sustained Fuller's points on the settlement credit and prejudgment interest and remanded for recalculation of the judgment.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sitz (11th District, 1998). The court of appeals reversed the $20 million judgment for the Sitz family against Owens-Corning, holding the trial court wrongly applied offensive collateral estoppel on liability issues, and remanded the case.
• Pustejovsky v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (4th District, 1998). The court affirmed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Pittsburgh Corning and Rapid-American, holding the widow's mesothelioma claim was barred by limitations because it accrued in 1982 with the asbestosis diagnosis.
• Carter v. Temple-Inland Forest Products (9th District, 1997). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the negligence (fear of cancer) claims of Carter and Wilson and remanded for trial, but affirmed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the gross negligence claim.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Keeton (3rd District, 1996). The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for four plaintiffs and their spouses against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting all six of the company's points of error about evidence and the jury charge.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Schmidt (9th District, 1996). The court of appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's prejudgment interest calculation and its taxing of ad litem fees against the minor plaintiffs, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning, denying it a malpractice credit and a pro rata settlement credit.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak (3rd District, 1996). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs (about $1.8 million compensatory and $3.7 million punitive damages) against Owens-Corning, overruling all eleven points of error.
• Click v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1995). The appeals court reversed the directed verdict for Owens-Corning Fiberglass and Pittsburgh Corning and remanded for trial, ruling that the Click family had presented enough circumstantial evidence that George Click was exposed to the companies' products.
• Keene Corp. v. Rogers (6th District, 1993). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Jessie and Eleanor Rogers and Robert and Jo Emma Lofton against Keene Corporation, holding that the recusal, jury charge and expert testimony rulings were not error and that the erroneous admission of the Mancuso deposition and reports was harmless.
• Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993). The court of appeals affirmed the jury's zero past-damages awards for the workers and wives against Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard, Pittsburgh-Corning and Keene, but reversed the limitations bar against the Spikes plaintiffs and reversed the Burt and Friley judgments for a wrong prejudgment-interest start date, remanding each.
• Keene Corp. v. Gardner (5th District, 1992). The appeals court affirmed the judgment for the four plaintiffs against Keene Corporation, but vacated the trial court's order sanctioning Keene over the mediation and ordered the plaintiffs to refund any money Keene paid under it.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool (6th District, 1991). The court affirmed the Williams judgment and, in the Pool/Strong/Sledge/Freeman case, affirmed in favor of the plaintiffs except that it set aside the $100,000 future medical award to Pool (new trial unless he remits) and the punitive damages against Garlock.
• Celotex Corp. v. Tate (13th District, 1990). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Tate's heirs against Celotex (as successor to Philip Carey) and George Rowley, Inc., including actual and punitive damages, rejecting all eleven of Celotex's points of error.
• Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (9th District, 1988). The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Raymark Industries and the other asbestos product defendants, holding Mertice Pecorino's mesothelioma claim barred by limitations, and said the 1981 release and assignment would also have barred it.