Kentucky Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Kentucky's courts and the federal courts there: 59 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Kentucky asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Kentucky asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Kentucky Supreme Court

• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2023). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Department of Workers' Claims, not the Board of Claims, has jurisdiction over Roger Hall's workers' compensation claim against the Letcher County Board of Education, so Hall prevailed.
• Sheets v. Ford Motor Co. (2021). The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded to the trial court, holding that neither appellate court had jurisdiction over Ford's interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary judgment on up-the-ladder immunity, so Sheets's estate prevailed on the jurisdiction question.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2019). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had upheld the Workers' Compensation Board's reversal of the ALJ's finding that Hall's claim was untimely, so Hall (claimant) won against the Letcher County Board of Education, and the case was remanded to the ALJ.
• Certainteed Corporation v. Dexter (2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the trial court did not err in granting CertainTeed and Garlock a new trial, and it remanded for the Court of Appeals to decide the cross-appeal from the second trial.
• Sunbeam Corporation v. Dortch (2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of Sunbeam's petition for a writ to compel dismissal of the wrongful death suit, so the executors of Leon Fischer's estate won and Sunbeam lost.
• Dunkel v. Boetler (2009). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of the executor's petition for a writ of prohibition, leaving in place the trial court's discovery limits favoring Arkema, Goodrich and Big Rivers.
• General Elec. Co. v. Cain (2007). The Kentucky Supreme Court held that General Electric was not entitled to summary judgment on its exclusive-remedy defense and that nine of the sixteen premises owners in the Rehm case were, with seven owners' claims remanded; it also held that documented proof of workers' compensation coverage suffices absent contrary evidence, and that the immunity does not violate Kentucky's jural rights doctrine.
• Carroll v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2000). Answering a question certified by the Sixth Circuit, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that Geraldine Carroll's lung cancer claim was not time-barred, which favors the plaintiff over the asbestos defendants (Owens-Corning and others).
• Capital Holding Corp. v. Bailey (1994). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the negligence claims, upholding summary judgment for Capital Holding because no cause of action had accrued without a present harmful change. It reversed the dismissal of the Baileys' outrageous conduct claim and sent it back for trial.
• Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Products (1979). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the limitations period barred the claim, held the Sampson estate's suit against Johns-Manville timely, and remanded for the Court of Appeals to consider Johns-Manville's other assignments of error.

State appeals courts

Kentucky Court of Appeals

• Kentucky Employers'mutual Insurance v. Hall (2024). The Court of Appeals reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's dismissal for lack of standing and remanded to the ALJ to determine which insurer was on the risk on Hall's date of last exposure, in favor of KEMI and Letcher County and against Encova.
• Williams v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (2023). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Square D and Union Carbide on the ground that they owed Vickie Williams no duty, vacated the order excluding the plaintiffs' expert's talc opinions, and affirmed the denial of Square D's workers' compensation exclusivity defense, remanding for further proceedings.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2022). The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board on jurisdiction and on the timeliness of Hall's medical bills, but reversed on interest and remanded for the 6% rate, so Hall prevailed on most points and Letcher County Board of Education prevailed on interest.
• Hayes v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2021). The court affirmed the jury instructions and the exclusion of the Gordon Paper, but reversed and remanded for a new trial against Johnson & Johnson because admitting its corporate representative's personal-use testimony was reversible error; the defense verdict for Colgate stood.
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (2021). The Court of Appeals dismissed Schneider Electric (Square D)'s appeal of the denial of summary judgment as interlocutory, for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded to the trial court, which favors Williams.
• Ford Motor Company v. Sheets (2019). The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's one-sentence order denying Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion and remanded for the trial court to state the basis for its ruling, leaving Ford's up-the-ladder immunity claim undecided.
• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Schneider Electric (Square D), so the estate of Vickie Williams may continue its claims against Square D.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's reversal of the ALJ, so Roger Hall's mesothelioma claim was not time-barred and the Letcher County Board of Education lost.
• Landreth v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgments for Pneumo Abex, Brake Supply, Eaton and ArvinMeritor against Vickery's Estate, and dismissed the defendants' cross-appeals as moot (one judge dissented).
• Mannahan v. Eaton Corporation (2016). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for Palmer Products, Eaton and Arvin-Meritor (Rockwell) against Mannahan and his estate, because the evidence did not show he was probably exposed to any of their brake products.
• Anderson v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's summary judgment for Motorola Solutions and Zenith Electronics and remanded for trial, ruling for the plaintiff estate.
• Durham v. Ford Motor Company (2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment and partial summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on both the plaintiff's appeal and Ford's cross-appeal, rejecting the Durham estate's premises and products claims and Ford's request for total immunity.
• McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (2014). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's defense verdict for Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company against the estate of William McGuire, finding no reversible error.
• Rehm v. Ford Motor Company (2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Ford Motor Company against the Rehm family, and held Ford's cross-appeal moot while addressing its merits.
• Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris (2009). The court reversed the judgment against Cardinal Industrial Insulation and remanded for a directed verdict in its favor, and rejected the Norris estate's cross-appeal claims, including its challenge to the directed verdict for Scientific Design.
• RT Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Franklin (2009). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the $4,090,000 judgment for Johnny Franklin and Flora Franklin's estate against R.T. Vanderbilt Company, rejecting all of Vanderbilt's claims of error.
• Jeffries v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation (2008). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Metcalfe Circuit Court's judgment on a defense verdict for Georgia-Pacific, holding the trial court did not err in denying the Irwin estate's motion for a new trial.
• Lee v. DuPONT (2008). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for DuPont, holding that the workers' compensation exclusive remedy barred Mildred Lee's suit over her husband's asbestos death and that denying further discovery was not an abuse of discretion.
• White v. Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. (2007). The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment that had dismissed Alice White's claims against Cardinal Industrial Insulation and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the White estate.
• Combs v. Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. (2006). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Albert Kahn & Associates and Turner Construction, holding the Combses' lung cancer claims against them were time-barred.
• Hunton v. City of Bowling Green (2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Warren Circuit Court's summary judgment dismissing the asbestos negligence claim against the City of Bowling Green, so the Hunton estate lost.
• Parker v. Henry A. Petter Supply Co. (2005). The court vacated summary judgment for Petter Supply and Hannan Supply as premature and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the dismissal of Mine Equipment & Mill Supply, so Parker won in part and lost in part.
• Rehm v. Navistar International (2005). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for all sixteen property-owner defendants, holding that they were immune under up-the-ladder workers' compensation immunity, so Rehm's estate and family lost.
• Clephas v. Garlock, Inc. (2004). The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment entered on the jury verdict for Garlock and remanded for a new trial, because Garlock's expert Dr. Sawyer's undisclosed medical and causation opinions should not have been admitted; the Clephases won this appeal.
• Heizer v. New Orleans and Pacific Railway Co. (2004). Affirmed summary judgment for the railroads on the FELA survival action as time-barred, but reversed dismissal of the children's wrongful death claim and remanded to reinstate it.
• Bailey v. North American Refractories Co. (2001). The Court of Appeals reversed the Boyd Circuit Court's summary judgments for NARCO and for Westinghouse (CBS) and remanded the claims of the Armco Steel workers and their spouses for further proceedings.
• Michals v. William T. Watkins Meth. Church (1994). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the Michals family's claims against the church, its trustees and the two contractors, holding that the parents could not recover for mental distress and the children could not recover for increased risk of future illness.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

• Stallings v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (2017). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Georgia-Pacific against Carol Lee Stallings, because her experts' 'any exposure' testimony could not show that Georgia-Pacific's products were a substantial factor in her husband's mesothelioma.
• Strickland v. Owens Corning (1998). The Sixth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in denying Owens Corning's new-trial/remittitur motion and remanded for a remittitur reducing the judgment to no more than $883,731 (50% fault), failing which a new trial limited to fault apportionment would be held; the plaintiff estate partly lost and Owens Corning partly won.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

• Bruszewski v. Motley Rice, LLC (2012). The court denied Motley Rice's and Provost Umphrey's motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint and Donna Bruszewski's individual claims, but granted dismissal of the claim for "lost" punitive damages.

U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky

• Brewer v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2024). The court granted in part and denied in part defendant BOC's motion for orders to obtain records: it will order the Social Security Administration to release the former husbands' records limited to the periods of marriage to Brewer, but denied orders directed to the Kentucky workers' claims department, employers and medical providers.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2022). The court granted Brake Supply's motion to permit an apportionment instruction naming Fras-Le, a third-party defendant dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, contingent on Brake Supply presenting enough evidence at trial of Fras-Le's fault.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2022). The court granted third-party defendant Fras-Le's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against third-party plaintiff Brake Supply.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2021). The court denied Brake Supply's summary judgment motion on exposure, causation and the Middleman Statute defense, granted it on the Papineaus' punitive-damages claim, excluded only the plaintiffs' hygienist Paskal's warnings testimony, and denied the other motions to exclude experts.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2021). The court denied the Papineaus' motion to sever or bifurcate Brake Supply's third-party claims against Fras-le and Carlisle Industrial, so all claims will be tried together.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company (2020). The court granted third-party defendant Fras-le North America's motion for summary judgment on Brake Supply's indemnity and apportionment claims and denied Brake Supply's motion to hold that motion in abeyance.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company (2020). The court denied third-party defendant Fras-le S.A.'s motion to dismiss Brake Supply's third-party complaint without prejudice, reserving judgment on service and personal jurisdiction and ordering 120 days of limited jurisdictional discovery.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2020). The magistrate judge granted third-party defendant Fras-le S.A.'s motion for a protective order against all topics in Brake Supply's amended Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, allowing Brake Supply to serve a revised notice on Topics 2, 3, 4 and 22-28.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2020). The court granted Rudd Equipment's motion to dismiss Brake Supply's amended third-party complaint, dismissing the common law indemnity claim for lack of facts, while noting Brake Supply keeps its right to seek an apportionment instruction at trial.
• Papineau v. Brake Supply Company, Inc. (2020). The district court overruled Honeywell's objection and left in place the Magistrate Judge's orders compelling Honeywell to answer an interrogatory and a document request, so the Papineaus prevailed.