Louisiana Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Louisiana's courts and the federal courts there: 582 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Louisiana asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Louisiana asbestos exposure sites.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's motion in limine, ruling that the Liberty Mutual insurance policy documents were authentic and admissible to the extent relevant, over the Robichaux plaintiffs' objections.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' motion in limine to exclude the late-produced expert affidavits of Kenneth Garza and Dr. Brent Staggs, so the plaintiffs may use them.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Huntington Ingalls' (Avondale's) motion for partial summary judgment on the Robichaux family's take-home exposure claim, so that claim goes forward.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court denied Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment, so Robichaux's state-law tort claims against Avondale were not preempted by the LHWCA and the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that releases Robichaux signed in the earlier Borden litigation released his future mesothelioma claims against the released parties, which were not parties here, so Avondale won and the plaintiffs lost this point.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023). The court granted summary judgment to IMO, GE, Viacom and Union Carbide, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice, and denied Zurich's summary judgment motion as moot because Zurich had been dismissed from the case.
• Rushton v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2023). The court granted Avondale's unopposed motion and directed entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) in favor of Avondale on the earlier summary judgments dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against it.
• Simoneaux v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. (2023). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive (Mennen)'s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, granted J&J's motion as to punitive damages, and denied J&J's motion as to civil conspiracy, so the conspiracy claim against J&J proceeds.
• Thompson v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2023). The court denied plaintiff Velma Lee Thompson's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute, a win for Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and its co-defendants.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court denied third-party defendant Amchem's motion for summary judgment against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls), finding genuine factual disputes on exposure and causation.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court denied Westinghouse's (ViacomCBS) motion for summary judgment against third-party plaintiff Avondale, finding genuine disputes of fact on exposure to Westinghouse's Micarta and on substantial-factor causation.
• Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022). The court granted plaintiff Ora Jean Adams's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) cannot use the Boyle government contractor defense or Yearsley derivative sovereign immunity against her failure-to-warn and failure-to-prevent-spread claims.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Ford, General Electric, Foster Wheeler, ViacomCBS (Westinghouse), Morse TEC (BorgWarner) and Navistar, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of BMW, Volkswagen and Honeywell (joined by Ford, Pneumo Abex and Morse TEC) and denied the defendants' motions in limine, so the plaintiffs' causation experts could testify, limited to opinions on cumulative asbestos exposure.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022). The court granted the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, dismissing the Becnel heirs' intentional tort, fraud and concealment claims, and denied Morse TEC's request for oral argument as unnecessary.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Morse TEC's motion, joined by many co-defendants, for summary judgment on contributory negligence, so the Becnel family's claims continue.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Hopeman's motion for partial summary judgment in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional tort claim, and denied it in part, so the plaintiffs' single business enterprise (alter ego) claim against Hopeman went forward.
• Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied, without prejudice, defendant American Insurance Company's two summary judgment motions (products hazard exclusion and no exposure during the policy period), leaving plaintiffs' claims against AIC as Eagle's alleged insurer in place.
• Boutte v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2022). The court denied McDermott's Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, holding that Huntington Ingalls (Avondale)'s cross-claim against McDermott met Rule 8 pleading standards.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike eleven defense expert witnesses, including Hopeman Brothers' witness Max Richard, because no expert reports were produced.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment dismissing the failure-to-warn claims, but denied it on the Halter Marine exposure and on whether its FRDM was a substantial factor in causing Cortez's mesothelioma.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Westinghouse (ViacomCBS) partial summary judgment on claims about asbestos insulation used on its turbines and denied it on claims about asbestos gaskets it supplied or specified for those turbines.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022). The court granted Continental Insurance Company's summary judgment motion, holding the LHWCA preempted Cortez's state-law tort claims against it as Halter Marine's insurer and that his intentional-tort claims failed for lack of evidence, and dismissed Continental's two other summary-judgment motions as moot.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' omnibus motion in limine, barring terms like "asbestos industry" and the Bair memorandum, while allowing the "asbestos victim" label and lay testimony about dust.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Travelers Indemnity Company's unopposed motion to quash the plaintiffs' trial subpoena, ruling against the plaintiffs.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied plaintiffs' Daubert motion in limine to limit the testimony of Hopeman Brothers' toxicologist, Dr. Brent Finley, so Hopeman prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not recover pre-death lost income or pre-death expenses as wrongful death damages.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Certain London Market Insurers' motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims arising from Avondale exposures after January 21, 1970, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in limine, excluding most of Westinghouse's expert Dr. Forman's testimony on insulation and general Navy requirements but allowing his testimony on shipyard asbestos-safety requirements relevant to the sophisticated-purchaser defense.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Riley Power, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the statute of repose and exposure-sufficiency grounds, and denied its motion to strike as moot, so plaintiffs (the Cortez family) prevailed over Riley at this stage.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Hopeman Brothers partial summary judgment that it was not a manufacturer of the asbestos wallboards, but denied summary judgment on whether it was a professional vendor, so that question goes to trial against the Cortez plaintiffs and Avondale's opposition.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual's motion to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiffs' industrial hygienist Gerald Baril, so the plaintiffs' expert may testify.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted third-party defendant Liberty Mutual's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Wayne Manufacturing was not a professional vendor of asbestos-containing wallboards, against third-party plaintiff Avondale; plaintiffs were found to lack standing to oppose.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims and their claims that Wayne Manufacturing was Hopeman's alter ego or part of a single business enterprise.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Travelers' summary judgment motion only on whether B&B was a professional vendor of asbestos (and so on strict products liability) and denied it on negligence duty and breach and on Article 2317 liability, so plaintiffs' other claims continued.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied Goodrich's motion for summary judgment (joined by several co-defendants) on Callen Cortez's claim for loss of personal household services, so plaintiffs kept that claim.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted partial summary judgment for Westinghouse (ViacomCBS), General Electric and Foster Wheeler, dismissing the plaintiffs' intentional-tort and fraud claims, and dismissed the punitive-damages part of the motion as moot.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied as premature the motion in limine by Foster Wheeler, GE and Westinghouse to exclude plaintiffs' two medical causation experts as cumulative, leaving defendants free to object at trial.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted in part the motion by Eagle and LIGA to limit plaintiffs' industrial hygienist Gerard Baril, barring him from testifying that a supplier who puts its name on an insulation box should legally be considered its manufacturer, and denied the motion otherwise.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to exclude Danny Joyce's hearsay testimony about Walsh-Healey inspectors, but denied it as to Avondale's expert relying on that testimony, so long as Avondale does not disclose the hearsay to the jury.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Trinity's summary judgment motion and the motions to dismiss by Continental, Liberty Mutual and Travelers, dismissing with prejudice Albert Bossier's third-party claims because no substitution was made within 90 days after notice of his death.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The district court denied as moot plaintiff Cortez's motion for review of the Magistrate Judge's order allowing Eagle, Inc. to file a supplemental answer, because Eagle's later answer to the third amended complaint made the earlier order irrelevant.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted insurer USF&G's unopposed motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Callen Cortez's punitive-damages claims against it.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted summary judgment to Entergy, First State, USF&G, Berkshire and Insulations, LLC, granted GE's motion in part (insulation claims) and denied it in part (asbestos gasket claims), and denied Foster Wheeler's motion; it also granted LIGA's motion in limine excluding hearsay.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted plaintiff Callen Cortez's motion for summary judgment that he has mesothelioma and that asbestos caused it, over the defendants' oppositions, while leaving specific causation issues for the jury.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court granted Avondale's summary judgment motion in part, dismissing Cortez's tort claims against Avondale as his employer and his intentional-tort claim, but denied it as to his take-home exposure claims against Avondale as his brother's employer.
• Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2022). The court denied the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Callen Cortez's claims arising from the Gabler Insulations insurance coverage go forward.
• Crossland v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (2022). The court granted plaintiff Linda Crossland's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that defendants Avondale and Hopeman were not entitled to government contractor (Boyle) or Yearsley immunity against her failure-to-warn and safety claims.
• Falcone v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2022). The court denied Texas Automatic Power's motion for summary judgment as premature, siding with cross-claimant Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) because fact questions and the need for further discovery remained.
• Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2022). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand to state court, keeping the case in federal court against defendant Avondale (Huntington Ingalls).