Kansas Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Kansas's courts and the federal courts there: 14 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Kansas asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Kansas asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Kansas Supreme Court

• Harding v. KC Wall Products, Inc. (1992). The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of K.C. Wall Products' summary judgment motion, holding the 1990 revival statute constitutional and Charlett Harding's suit timely, and remanded for further proceedings.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

• Little v. the Budd Company, Inc. (2020). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Nancy Little against The Budd Company, holding Budd waived its Locomotive Inspection Act preemption theory and that the Safety Appliance Act does not preempt her state tort claims.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Kansas

• Dickenson v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2023). The magistrate judge granted Henkel's motion to compel production of Dickenson's settlement agreements with Pfizer, Barretts Minerals and any others, denied without prejudice the request for settlement communications, and declined to award expenses.
• Dickenson v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2022). The court granted plaintiff Dickenson's motion for limited jurisdictional discovery against defendant BSI, allowing written discovery and a short deposition for 60 days before he must respond to BSI's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Little v. Budd Company (2019). The district court denied both the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 37(c)(2) and The Budd Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury verdict for the plaintiff in place.
• Little v. Budd Co. (2018). The court denied Budd's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption of the state-law claims, granted it on the alternative negligence per se claim, and granted plaintiff's motion in part and denied it in part. It also struck a paragraph of Budd's president's declaration.
• Little v. Budd Company (2018). The court denied Budd Company's motion to exclude Dr. Brody, granted in part and denied in part its motion to exclude Dr. Castleman (barring testimony about what Budd knew), and denied the motion on Dr. Frank as moot.
• Little v. Budd Company (2018). The court denied The Budd Company's motion to amend and certify its two earlier orders on Federal Safety Appliance Act preemption for interlocutory appeal, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on the motion.
• Little v. the Budd Company (2018). The district court overruled The Budd Company's objection and affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying its motion to add a ninth expert witness and reopen discovery, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on this motion.
• Little v. the Budd Company (2018). The court denied The Budd Company's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, so plaintiff Nancy Little's state law claims and her alternative negligence per se claim proceed.
• Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc. (1991). The court granted the plaintiff's motion and ruled that Texas law, not Kansas law with its 10-year statute of repose, governed the claims against Proko, Georgia-Pacific, National Gypsum and United States Gypsum.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1989). The court denied the summary judgment motions of defendants Celotex and Fibreboard, which argued the wrongful death action was barred by Kansas's ten-year provision, so plaintiff Mary Menne's claim could proceed.
• Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986). The court overruled the post-trial motions (JNOV, new trial, remittitur) of Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Fibreboard and Raymark, leaving in place the $2,500,000 jury verdict for plaintiff Menne, and explained that Nebraska law would adopt alternative liability.
• Miller v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, refusing to bar Johns-Manville from disputing that its asbestos insulation was defective and unreasonably dangerous, so Johns-Manville prevailed on the motion.