Minnesota Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Minnesota's courts and the federal courts there: 25 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Minnesota asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Minnesota asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Minnesota Supreme Court

• Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company (2020). The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and the grant of summary judgment for Honeywell, holding Deborah Palmer's wrongful death claim time-barred.
• Conwed v. Union Carbide Chem. and Plastics (2001). Answering five questions certified by the federal district court, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Conwed may pursue subrogation only for identified employees with a compensable injury, including settled claims that may reopen, but not for employees without manifested disease or without a present duty to pay; it also held that Conwed may seek prejudgment interest from Union Carbide.
• 80 S. 8th St. Ltd. Ptsp. v. Carey-Canada (1992). Answering a certified question from the federal district court, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar the building owner, 80 South Eighth, from suing W.R. Grace in tort for asbestos fireproofing maintenance, removal and replacement costs; it did not reach the other two questions.
• Crepeau BY Crepeau v. Krost Insulation Co. (1983). The court affirmed the workers' compensation award against Krost and its 1978 carrier Minnesota Mutual, but reversed the Court of Appeals' increase in dependency benefits and reinstated the compensation judge's lower dependency award for the widow.
• DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982). The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the asbestos defendants and remanded, holding the wrongful death limitation period can be tolled for fraudulent concealment, so the trustee for DeCosse's heirs may proceed.

State appeals courts

Minnesota Court of Appeals

• Anderson v. AH Bennett Company (2025). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment for Waldorf (Westrock) against the Andersons and remanded, because fact issues remain about whether Mr. Anderson was significantly exposed to asbestos while employed by Waldorf.
• Backe v. AW Kuettel & Sons, Inc. (2020). The Court of Appeals of Minnesota affirmed the denial of Conwed Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the Backes' asbestos claims against Conwed continue in Minnesota.
• Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company (2019). The court affirmed summary judgment for Honeywell on limitations grounds and the dismissal of the claims against Walker Jamar for insufficient service of process, so the plaintiff Deborah Palmer lost both appeals.
• Conda v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Jenella Conda (trustee for the heirs of Ronald Conda) against Honeywell International, rejecting Honeywell's challenges to the expert testimony, the special-verdict form, the misconduct ruling and the fault reallocation.
• Rock v. Bucyrus Int'l (In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation) (2009). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Bucyrus International's motion to quash a commission for presuit discovery, ruling for respondent Joyce Rock and against Bucyrus.
• Newinski v. John Crane, Inc. (2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of John Crane's new-trial motion but reversed the district court's reallocation of the non-party entities' share, and remanded for entry of judgment against Crane for the whole award less the Pierringer-released defendants' 20% share, which favored the Newinskis.
• James v. 3M Corporation (2008). The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of Ainsworth-Benning's motion to dismiss, holding Minnesota lacked personal jurisdiction over the South Dakota company, so Ainsworth won and Von St. James lost on that motion.
• Strand v. Allied Insulation Supply Co. (2007). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of General Pipe Covering's third-party contribution claims against Quality Insulation and Econ Insulation, so Quality and Econ won and General Pipe lost.
• Duffy v. American Standard, Inc. (2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Scheid/HiMEC, holding they had not shown a common enterprise with Hormel, so the Duffys could proceed with their suit.
• Bunce v. Api, Inc. (2005). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding that A.P.I., having signed a Pierringer release with Bunce, could not pursue contribution or indemnity claims against the non-settling third-party defendants (Illinois Tool Works, Turner Construction, Gagnon, Azco, Insulation Sales, Egan Companies).
• Tester v. American Standard, Inc. (1999). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas and MacArthur Company, ruling that Tester, found more at fault than each of them, could not recover from either.
• Kath v. Burlington Northern R. Co. (1989). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Eileen Kath against Burlington Northern Railroad, rejecting the railroad's challenges to the jury instructions, verdict form, Schwartz hearing denial, damages and evidence rulings.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

• Filipek v. the Boeing Company (2017). The court granted summary judgment to Boeing, Navistar, Borg-Warner Morse Tec, CBS, McNeil, Northern States Power and United Technologies because the Filipeks' claims were time-barred, denied the Filipeks' motion to withdraw an admission, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
• McGill v. Conwed Corporation (2017). The federal district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court and granted Conwed Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the case without prejudice.
• Conwed Corporation v. Union Carbide Corporation (2004). The court granted Conwed's motion (treated as one for summary judgment) and dismissed with prejudice Union Carbide's counterclaim for contribution to its Naig settlements with Conwed's former employees.
• Conwed Corp. v. Union Carbide Corp. (2003). The district court denied Union Carbide's renewed motion for summary judgment on bulk supplier/sophisticated user grounds, leaving Conwed's subrogation claim against Union Carbide to proceed.
• Independent School Dist. No. 197 v. WR Grace (1990). The federal district court denied W.R. Grace's motions for summary judgment and dismissal on the limitations/repose, revival-statute, economic loss, merchantability, restitution, trade practices and preemption issues, and denied certification to the Minnesota Supreme Court; it granted Grace's unopposed motion on the implied warranty of fitness claim.
• Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982). The court granted plaintiff Bertrand's partial summary judgment motion only on whether asbestos dust can cause asbestosis and mesothelioma, barring the defendants from litigating that point, and denied it on the state of the art defense and whether the products were unreasonably dangerous.
• United States v. Reserve Mining Company (1974). After a long trial, the district court enjoined Reserve Mining's discharges of amphibole fibers into Lake Superior and the air at Silver Bay, held its parents Armco and Republic responsible, and ruled for the United States, the states and the intervening plaintiffs against the defendants.

Federal bankruptcy courts

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota

• In re Api, Inc. (2005). The bankruptcy court granted the Debtor's motion for summary judgment on the insurance-related, standing and exoneration issues, ruling that the plan does not alter insurers' policy rights, that the insurers lack standing to object on five groups of issues, and that the exoneration provision is lawful.