Federal Preemption in Asbestos Cases

Decisions in our library in which the court ruled on federal preemption (other than maritime or FELA): 67 cases, by state. Each line gives what the court held, in our words; the law differs from state to state and changes, so read the opinion and talk to a lawyer before relying on any of them.

North Carolina

• In re Aldrich Pump LLC (2021). Under the Texas divisional merger statute the asbestos liabilities belong only to the debtors, so suits against non-debtor affiliates to recover them are stayed under section 362(a)(1). Claims such as fraudulent transfer, alter ego and successor liability are estate property or belong first to the trustee, and are stayed under section 362(a)(3). A preliminary injunction under section 105 was warranted because such suits would interfere with reorganization.
• In re Dbmp LLC (2021). Because the Texas divisional merger allocated all of Old CertainTeed's asbestos liabilities to DBMP, claims on those liabilities are claims against the debtor and are stayed under section 362(a)(1). Alter ego, successor liability and fraudulent transfer theories against the non-debtor affiliates are estate property or first-crack avoidance claims, stayed under section 362(a)(3).

Other federal courts

• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (2012). Section 1123(a)(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code expressly preempts anti-assignment provisions in insurance policies to the extent they bar transfer of insurance rights to a § 524(g) asbestos trust under a reorganization plan.
• Kurns v. AW Chesterton Inc. (2010). The Locomotive Inspection Act preempts the field of locomotive parts and appurtenances, so state-law design defect and failure-to-warn claims against makers of locomotive parts over asbestos exposure are preempted. The Federal Railroad Safety Act did not narrow that preemption.
• Dorse v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (1990). Under Boyle, state failure-to-warn law is displaced only if it significantly conflicts with a federal contract duty. No conflict existed because the Navy specifications did not prohibit health warnings, so the contractor could comply with both.
• Environmental Encapsulating Corp. v. New York City (1988). Section 18 of the OSH Act preempts state or local requirements only where they lack a legitimate and substantial purpose apart from protecting workers in an area covered by a federal OSHA standard; requirements with a public-health purpose are neither expressly nor impliedly preempted.

Pennsylvania

• Shields v. General Electric Co. (2020). The Locomotive Inspection Act preempts state-law negligence, wrongful death and survival claims that would impose state duties and standards of care on the manufacture and maintenance of locomotive equipment, including traction motors being refurbished for return to service.
• Hassell v. Budd Company (2019). The Locomotive Inspection Act preempts state strict liability and negligence claims about asbestos in locomotive equipment, including pipes originating in the locomotive and brake-system insulation on passenger cars, but not pipes self-contained to a railcar. The Safety Appliance Act preempts only the specific equipment it lists, and pipe insulation is not listed.
• Hassell v. The Budd Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI)) (2016). A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may consider only the complaint's allegations, and if the motion is treated as one for summary judgment, preemption cannot be found where the movants offered no evidence and the record shows a genuine factual dispute.
• Stellar v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2015). A state-law claim against an employer for asbestos exposure is not completely preempted by LMRA § 301 where the duty arises from state common law independent of the collective bargaining agreements and resolving the claim does not require interpreting any CBA provision.
• Perry v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2013). The Locomotive Inspection Act's field preemption, as affirmed in Kurns, covers state law claims about asbestos-containing brake shoes on railcars. The court treated those brake shoes as a part or appurtenance of the locomotive braking system.
• Donn v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (2012). Federal war powers, procurement law and regulations do not occupy the field of state tort law on failure to warn of asbestos on Navy ships, and conflict with federal interests is addressed through the Boyle government contractor test rather than preemption. A failure-to-warn suit between private parties against Navy equipment suppliers is also not a non-justiciable political question.
• Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (2012). The Locomotive Inspection Act occupies the field of regulating locomotive equipment as defined in Napier, and state common-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims directed at locomotive equipment fall within that preempted field.
• Kurns v. AW Chesterton (2009). The Boiler Inspection Act (Locomotive Inspection Act) occupies the field of locomotive equipment, parts and appurtenances, so state-law tort claims over asbestos in locomotive brake pads and engine valves are preempted. A federal court may reexamine a state court's interlocutory denial of summary judgment after removal, and federal law governs preemption.

Texas

• Andrews v. John Crane, Inc. (14th District, 2020). General maritime law preempts state law for a Navy sailor's asbestos products claims against a gasket maker, and DOHSA does not bar a general maritime survival recovery for the decedent seaman's pre-death pain and suffering.
• In re Global Sante FE Corporation (2008). The Jones Act does not preempt Chapter 90's expert-report requirements or its MDL pretrial consolidation, which are procedural and general in nature, but it does preempt the minimal-impairment requirement for silicosis claims and any higher causation standard than the federal one.

Wisconsin

• Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2018). Under Wis. Stat. § 895.047(3)(b), federal agency certification of a product creates a rebuttable presumption that it is not defective, and plaintiffs can rebut it with evidence that the product did not meet its certified specifications. The same evidence also supports a negligence claim.