U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 29 asbestos decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (1981–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal appeals court

Decisions

• In re Bestwall, LLC (2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of the claimants' and Maune Raichle's appeals from the bankruptcy court's contempt and sanctions orders, so Bestwall prevailed.
• Penegar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the executrix's Medicare Secondary Payer Act suit against Liberty Mutual for lack of Article III standing, so Liberty Mutual won and Penegar lost.
• Foushee v. RT Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc. (2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company and Vanderbilt Minerals, holding the plaintiff did not show enough exposure to survive summary judgment.
• In re Bestwall LLC (2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's preliminary injunction that barred asbestos claims against non-debtor New GP, ruling for Bestwall and Georgia-Pacific and against the Asbestos Claimants Committee and the Future Claimants' Representative.
• Connor v. Covil Corporation (2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Covil Corporation, holding that Darrell Connor, suing for his father's death, had not shown enough exposure to Covil's asbestos insulation.
• Smith v. Schlage Lock Company, LLC (2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Schlage Lock Company and against Dorothy Smith, because there was no evidence Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos at the plant and, in any event, Schlage Lock was not liable for exposure incident to an independent contractor's work.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2020). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ann Finch and her husband's estate against Covil Corporation, holding that the jury instruction on causation was proper and the $32.7 million compensatory award did not have to be reduced.
• Phillips v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2017). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Pneumo Abex, holding the jury's special verdict was consistent and the denial of Phillips' new trial motion was proper.
• Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2017). The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand order, holding Foster Wheeler met the federal officer removal requirements of § 1442(a)(1), and remanded for the district court to decide whether the removal notice was timely.
• Brinkman v. General Dynamics Corporation (2016). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order remanding the case to state court and sent it back for further proceedings, in light of its new ruling that the government contractor defense is available in failure-to-warn cases; this favored General Dynamics and Electric Boat over the Brinkmans.
• Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Crane Co., CBS Corporation (Westinghouse), Goulds Pumps and Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo) against plaintiff Christine Pace, finding her evidence of exposure insufficient.
• Ripley v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2016). The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's order remanding the case to Virginia state court, ruling for Foster Wheeler, and remanded for the district court to decide whether Foster Wheeler offered enough proof to support federal officer removal.
• Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co. (2014). The en banc Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's orders denying Colgate-Palmolive's Rule 11 and Rule 60(b)(3) motions, holding that the court had jurisdiction to consider them, and remanded for the district court to rule on the merits.
• Wood v. Crane Co. (2014). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand of the Joyner estate's gasket claims against Crane Co. to Maryland state court, so the plaintiff prevailed and Crane lost its bid to stay in federal court.
• Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock v. Stilley (2001). The Fourth Circuit denied Newport News Shipbuilding's petition for review and upheld the Benefits Review Board's decision holding the company fully liable to Stilley's widow under the last maritime employer rule.
• Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Faulk (2000). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's order, holding Norshipco liable as the last responsible employer for Theodore Faulk's full LHWCA disability award for peritoneal mesothelioma.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Sain (1998). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's award of LHWCA disability, medical and death benefits to widow Frances Sain against Brown & Root and Highlands Insurance, rejecting their forfeiture, offset and special fund arguments.
• In re Celotex Corp. (1997). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Owens-Illinois's motion to remand and its dismissal of the contribution action against Rapid American for lack of personal jurisdiction, so Rapid won and Owens-Illinois lost.
• Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. (1994). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Beverly Lesnick's wrongful death suit against Hollingsworth & Vose for lack of personal jurisdiction in Maryland; Hollingsworth & Vose won and Lesnick lost.
• Newport News Shipbuilding v. Harris (1991). The Fourth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board's denial of special-fund relief to Newport News Shipbuilding and remanded, ruling for the employer against the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
• Vaughn v. Farrell Lines, Inc. (1991). The Fourth Circuit affirmed that Foster Wheeler owed the shipowners indemnity for their settlement of the seaman's death claim, but reversed the amount and remanded for a reduction to cover only vessels with Foster Wheeler boilers.
• Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Joyce's claims against the asbestos manufacturers as time-barred, the dismissal of his intentional failure-to-warn claim against DuPont under workers' compensation exclusivity, and summary judgment for DuPont on his fraudulent concealment claim.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants: directed verdicts for Raymark, Celotex and Pittsburgh Corning, a jury verdict for the other four defendants, and the challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, against plaintiff Lohrmann.
• Roehling v. Nat. Gypsum Co. Gold Bond Bldg. (1986). The Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment for National Gypsum and Owens-Illinois on the Huntley Power Station exposure and remanded for trial, but affirmed summary judgment for Celotex and on the DuPont and Ford plant exposures.
• Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986). The Fourth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the asbestos product defendants and remanded, holding the North Carolina statute of repose did not bar the executrix's wrongful death claim.
• Large v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (1983). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Bucyrus-Erie and Northwest Engineering because Large's injuries occurred more than two years before he sued; one judge would have reversed on the failure-to-warn claim.
• Director, Office OF Workers'comp. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (1982). The Fourth Circuit reversed the Benefits Review Board's ruling that the special fund must pay part of Langley's compensation, upholding the ALJ's findings for the Director against Newport News Shipbuilding, and remanded the question of asbestosis as a pre-existing condition to the ALJ.
• Vaughan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981). The Fourth Circuit vacated summary judgment for the asbestos manufacturers (Johns-Manville and others) and remanded for further proceedings, holding admiralty jurisdiction was present and laches rather than the Virginia two-year statute governed timeliness, so the widow's claim was revived.
• White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgments n.o.v. and summary judgments for the asbestos manufacturers, held that admiralty jurisdiction applied, and remanded for a new trial under admiralty law, which favored the shipyard workers.