Florida Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Florida's courts and the federal courts there: 70 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Florida asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Florida asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Florida Supreme Court

• Ripple v. CBS Corporation (2024). The Florida Supreme Court held that Jennifer Ripple, who married the decedent after his asbestos exposure and diagnosis, can recover as a "surviving spouse" under section 768.21(2), approved the Fifth District's Domino's decision, and quashed the Fourth District's ruling against her (which had favored the defendants).
• DeLisle v. Crane Co. (2018). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision, which had ordered a new trial for R.J. Reynolds (as Lorillard's successor) and a directed verdict for Crane, and remanded for reinstatement of DeLisle's $8 million final judgment.
• Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's reversal and ordered the jury verdict and judgment for William Aubin against Union Carbide reinstated.
• American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (2011). The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District, holding that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to the asbestosis plaintiffs, who prevailed over American Optical and the other asbestos defendants.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999). The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question yes and approved the Fourth District's decision upholding the $31 million punitive damages award for Ballard against Owens-Corning.
• Celotex Corp. v. Meehan (1988). The Florida Supreme Court quashed all three Third District decisions: it held Meehan's New York-barred claim was revived by a new New York statute and could proceed, remanded Nance for a significant-relationships determination, and let Colon's Florida-based claim proceed.
• Celotex Corp. v. Copeland (1985). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Third District's approval of market share liability (reinstating dismissal of that theory but allowing Copeland to amend his complaint), and approved the Third District's ruling that the statute of limitations could not be decided by summary judgment, so the Copelands may proceed against the asbestos manufacturers.

State appeals courts

Florida District Court of Appeal

• Lornamead, Inc. v. Fleemin (4th District, 2023). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Lornamead's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed the trial court to dismiss Lornamead from the action, so Lornamead won and the Fleemins lost.
• Smith v. Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. (1st District, 2023). The First District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had granted to Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction and remanded, ruling for the estate of Joan Smith.
• Ripple v. CBS Corporation (4th District, 2022). The court affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the decedent's wife's wrongful death damages claim under Kelly, but reversed summary judgment against the adult children's claim, so the estate won in part and the defendants won in part, and conflict with Domino's Pizza was certified.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Font (3rd District, 2020). The court reversed the final judgment for Paula Font against Union Carbide and remanded for a third trial, because excluded affidavits and a flawed learned intermediary instruction were errors, while rejecting Union Carbide's causation argument and Font's cross-appeal on Johns Manville.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the jury verdict for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding the adverse-inference sanction improper and the evidence of Bechtel's possession and control of the plant insufficient.
• Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc. v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Highland Stucco and Lime v. Onorato (3rd District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order denying Highland Stucco and Lime Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling for Highland and against the Onoratos.
• Southern Wall Products v. Bolin (4th District, 2018). The appeals court reversed the denial of Southern Wall Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed the trial court to dismiss SWP from the Bolins' suit.
• Bechtel Corporation v. Batchelor (3rd District, 2017). The appeals court reversed the jury judgment for Richard and Regina Batchelor against Bechtel and directed entry of judgment for Bechtel, finding insufficient evidence that Bechtel controlled the premises and error in the adverse inference instruction.
• Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (4th District, 2017). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the widow's consortium damages claim under the Wrongful Death Act, ruling for the defendants (Georgia-Pacific, Union Carbide and others) against Janis Kelly, because she married the decedent after his asbestos exposure.
• Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation v. Britt (3rd District, 2017). The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment and jury verdict for Mrs. Britt and her husband's estate against Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, rejecting all five of Northrop's arguments.
• Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Jones (2nd District, 2017). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because Mrs. Jones did not show minimum contacts with Florida, and remanded for the trial court to consider her motion to compel jurisdictional discovery.
• Crane Co. v. DeLisle (4th District, 2016). The appeals court reversed the $8 million verdict, directing entry of a directed verdict for Crane Co. and ordering a new trial on all issues, including damages, for R.J. Reynolds (as successor to Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose), because expert causation testimony was wrongly admitted.
• Font v. Union Carbide Corp. (3rd District, 2016). On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Third District reversed the judgment for Union Carbide after a jury verdict and remanded Count II (strict liability) for a new trial, because the trial court refused Font's requested consumer expectations instruction.
• Rich v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (4th District, 2012). The appeals court affirmed the final judgment entered after a jury found Kaiser Gypsum, R.T. Vanderbilt and Union Carbide not liable to Abbey Rich and her husband's estate, holding the former testimony was properly admitted or, for one deposition, any error was harmless.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed denial of a directed verdict on the warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on warning because the jury instruction was misleading; Union Carbide won in part and Aubin lost in part.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (3rd District, 2012). The appeals court reversed the denial of Union Carbide's directed verdict on Aubin's design defect claim, affirmed the denial of a directed verdict on his warning defect claim, and remanded for a new trial on the warning claim because of a misleading jury instruction.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (3rd District, 2009). Reversed the $24,170,000 judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the letter evidence, the verdict form, the consortium award and the setoff.
• Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (3rd District, 2009). The appeals court reversed the $24.17 million judgment for Guilder and his children against Honeywell and remanded for a new trial, finding errors in the evidence ruling, the verdict form, the consortium award and the settlement setoff.
• Williams v. American Optical Corporation (4th District, 2008). The appellate court reversed the trial courts' dismissals of the plaintiffs' asbestosis claims, holding the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act could not be applied to already-accrued claims, and remanded for further proceedings; plaintiffs won, defendants lost.
• Fernandez v. Union Carbide Corp. (3rd District, 2006). The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide Corporation, rejecting the plaintiff's challenges to the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
• ACandS, Inc. v. Redd (3rd District, 1997). The Third District reversed the $7.2 million loss-of-consortium judgment for Carol Redd against ACandS and ordered a new trial, because her derivative claim abated when her husband died mid-trial; conflict with the Fifth District was certified.
• Snoozy v. US Gypsum Co. (3rd District, 1997). The appeals court reversed the denial of a new trial on the children's damages, ordering a new trial on that issue only, and affirmed the directed verdict removing the 75% fault the jury had assigned to unnamed "others", ruling against U.S. Gypsum on its cross-appeal.
• Chesterton v. Fisher (3rd District, 1995). The appeals court reversed the judgment for the plaintiffs (the Fisher estate and survivor) against A.W. Chesterton and The Anchor Packing Company and remanded for a new trial, ruling for the defendants on the cross-examination issue.
• Davies v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (3rd District, 1994). The appellate court reversed the final judgment for Owens-Illinois after a jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, because excluding the Ames deposition was an abuse of discretion that favored the plaintiff, Frances Davies.
• WR Grace & Co.—Conn. v. Dougherty (2nd District, 1994). The appeals court affirmed the final judgment for the Dougherty plaintiffs against W.R. Grace and Owens-Corning, rejecting their challenges to the jury instructions, the deposition evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence of Grace's negligence.
• Baione v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2nd District, 1992). The appellate court reversed the final judgment for Owens-Illinois, reinstated the plaintiff's strict liability counts and punitive damages claim, and remanded; the plaintiff got no retrial on negligence because she had not appealed that verdict.
• Hammer v. Rosenthal Jew. Sup. Corp. (4th District, 1990). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Hammer estate's suit against Rosenthal Jewelers Supply and the other defendants as a discovery sanction, but remanded to give Mrs. Hammer ten days to consent to the autopsy and so prevent dismissal.
• Landrum v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (3rd District, 1988). The Florida Third District Court of Appeal denied Landrum's petition for certiorari, leaving in place the trial court's order for an autopsy if he died during the litigation, so Armstrong and the other defendants prevailed on this point (one judge dissented).
• Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (1st District, 1987). The appeals court reversed the deputy commissioner's finding that the 1973 exposure at Harry Harmon Insulation was not the last injurious exposure, but affirmed that the widow's death benefits claim was barred by the 350-week limit, remanding for further proceedings.
• Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox (3rd District, 1985). The appeals court affirmed the money judgment for plaintiff Milton Cox against Eagle-Picher Industries, rejecting Eagle-Picher's challenge to the admission of cancer-risk evidence and its other claimed errors.
• Keene Corp. v. Bahl (1st District, 1985). The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the deputy commissioner's order awarding workers' compensation benefits to claimant Howard Bahl against Keene Corporation and its carrier Hartford, rejecting their defenses.
• Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (3rd District, 1985). The en banc court (by a 4-4 tie) left the revised panel opinion standing, which reversed summary judgment for the defendants and remanded, and certified a question on the borrowing statute to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Nance v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (3rd District, 1985). The en banc appeals court reversed the summary judgment that had gone to the asbestos defendants on limitations grounds and remanded, because the record did not show whether the claim arose in Florida or Virginia; it later certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Copeland v. Celotex Corp. (3rd District, 1984). The appeals court reversed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of the Copelands' third amended complaint against Celotex, held that it stated a cause of action, and remanded for further proceedings.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

• Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2018). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Union Carbide for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against the Waites.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida

• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part the Daubert motions of defendants Atwood (Valves and Controls US) and Warren Pumps, excluding Dr. Zhang's first cumulative-exposure causation opinion and his asbestosis opinion but allowing his second causation opinion and his pleural plaque opinion.
• Israel v. John Crane, Inc. (2022). The court granted John Crane's motion for summary judgment, holding Norman Israel's maritime-law lung cancer claims time-barred because he knew or should have known of the cause by December 21, 2016.
• Doolin v. Ford Motor Company (2018). The district court excluded the plaintiff's specific-causation expert, Dr. Kradin, and then granted summary judgment to Ford Motor Company and Pneumo Abex LLC, ruling against the estate's representative, Stacey Doolin.
• Stevenson v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2018). The court granted Imerys Talc America's summary judgment motion for lack of specific personal jurisdiction in Florida and dismissed the action against Imerys; the plaintiff lost as to Imerys.
• Doolin v. American Optical Corporation (2017). The court denied the plaintiff's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against defendant BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC, so Morse TEC prevailed on the motion.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (2016). The court granted the defendants' motion in part, dismissing Marsha Dugas's individual claims (including Count IV, loss of consortium) so they proceed within the wrongful death action, and denied the motion to strike and the demand for more detail about survivors.
• Dugas v. 3M Company (2016). The court granted 3M summary judgment on the design defect and fraudulent concealment claims, denied it on the failure to warn claim, and partly excluded plaintiff's expert Darell Bevis (no design opinion; product identification opinion allowed).