Mississippi Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Mississippi's courts and the federal courts there: 24 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Mississippi asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Mississippi asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Mississippi Supreme Court

• Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Oakes EX rel. Hagan (2018). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding Illinois Central Railroad entitled to a pro tanto setoff for asbestos trust payments, and remanded for a hearing on whether the payments covered the same injuries.
• Union Carbide Corporation v. Nix (2014). The court affirmed the compensatory verdict for Nix against Union Carbide, reversed the punitive damages award and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages only, vacated the attorney's fees award, and affirmed the special master fee and 8% postjudgment interest.
• Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (2010). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendants (Garlock, Trane, Rapid-American and the other appellants) against Mary Pittman, because the original complaint was a nullity and her 2005 amended complaint was time-barred.
• Gorman-Rupp Company v. Hall (2005). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for Gorman-Rupp Company, against plaintiff Bobby G. Hall.
• Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Gregory (2005). The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the Tunica County Circuit Court's denial of Illinois Central Railroad's motion to transfer and/or dismiss, holding the nine employees were improperly joined; out-of-state claims were to be dismissed and the rest severed and transferred to proper venues.
• Owens Corning v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (2004). The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the tobacco defendants on all of Owens Corning's claims, holding they were barred by the remoteness doctrine, and did not reach the cross-appeal issues.
• Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards (1990). The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, the circuit court's partial summary judgment for Charles Edwards, holding his asbestosis claim was not time barred, and rejected the defendants (Owens-Illinois and others) on the limitations defense.

State appeals courts

Mississippi Court of Appeals

• City of Jackson v. Sandifer (2013). The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order upholding the Workers' Compensation Commission's award of permanent partial disability benefits to Sam Sandifer, rejecting the City of Jackson's limitations and causation arguments.
• Brooks v. Stone Architecture (2006). The Court of Appeals of Mississippi affirmed summary judgment for Stone Architecture and the subcontractors, rejecting the students' and teachers' fear-of-future-disease claims.
• Geske v. Williamson (2006). The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for insurance agent Danny Williamson and rejected Virginia Geske's challenges to the admission of asbestos settlement evidence and testimony about the related federal suit.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Company (2020). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for American Honda Motor Company, refusing to consider the plaintiffs' Lohrmann Test argument because they first raised it in a motion for reconsideration.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi

• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2020). The federal district court granted American Honda Motor Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Bedford plaintiffs' claims for lack of evidence that a Honda product caused Beverly Bedford's mesothelioma and death.
• Bedford v. American Honda Motor Co. (2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and barred American Honda Motor Co. from deposing plaintiff William Bedford, because of the health risk to him and the defendant's late request.

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi

• Simpson v. American International Industries (2023). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the removal was procedurally proper and that the three Mississippi seller defendants were improperly joined, so the removing defendant American International Industries prevailed.
• Webb v. 3M Company (2022). The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court, which favored Lockheed Martin, John Crane, Alfa Laval, Unisys, Eaton and Rockwell over the Watson estate.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair Inc. (2021). The court denied the Dickens plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its earlier grant of summary judgment to Ford Motor Co. on causation and punitive damages, so Ford won and the plaintiffs lost.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair Inc. (2021). The court granted Ford Motor Co.'s motions for summary judgment on causation and punitive damages, dismissing the Dickens plaintiffs' claims against Ford with prejudice.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair Inc. (2020). The court granted Trinity Marine Products' motion for summary judgment, ruling that Delaware or Tennessee law governs successor liability and neither recognizes the product line theory, so plaintiffs William and Karla Dickens lost their claim against Trinity.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair (2019). The court granted Edelbrock's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Dickens plaintiffs' claims against Edelbrock with prejudice.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair Inc. (2019). The court granted A-1 Auto Parts & Repair's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on its innocent seller defense and dismissed the Dickenses' claims against A-1 without prejudice, with 14 days to seek leave to amend.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc. (2019). The court granted Detroit Diesel's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' market-share-type causation theories, fraud/concealment/conspiracy claims and aiding-and-abetting claim, with leave for the Dickenses to seek to amend.
• Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc. (2018). The court granted Ford Motor Company's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' alternative-causation claims with prejudice and their fraud, concealment and aiding-and-abetting conspiracy claims without prejudice, and allowed the Dickenses to seek leave to amend.
• Everitt v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2009). The district court granted Pneumo Abex's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that the plaintiffs' contract and fraud claims over the asbestos settlement were time-barred in part and otherwise without merit.
• McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, so the asbestos product defendants were not barred from relitigating product defect and state-of-the-art issues decided in Borel.