Montana Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Montana's courts and the federal courts there: 26 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Montana asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Montana asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Montana Supreme Court

• Maryland Cas. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Court (2020). The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Asbestos Claims Court's grant of summary judgment to Ralph Hutt on the duty element of his negligence claim against Maryland Casualty Company, on different reasoning, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Orr v. State (2004). The Montana Supreme Court reversed the District Court's dismissal of the Libby miners' negligence suit against the State of Montana and remanded for a fact-finder to decide breach and causation; the miners won this round and the State lost.

State trial courts

Montana Workers' Comp. Court

• Rosling v. Associated Loggers Exchange (2019). The Workers' Compensation Court held that McMillan's claim was timely, his asbestos-related disease was a compensable occupational disease, and insurer Associated Loggers Exchange was liable, awarding medical benefits, an impairment award, permanent total disability benefits and costs, but denying attorney fees and a penalty.
• Atchley v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. (2018). The Montana Workers' Compensation Court held Louisiana Pacific Corp. liable to Hazel Atchley for death benefits for her husband's asbestos-related disease, and awarded her costs but denied attorney fees and a penalty.
• Wommack v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. (2017). The Workers' Compensation Court held Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., the insurer at risk during Wommack's final years at Cenex, liable for his asbestos-related occupational disease, awarded him costs, and denied his requests for attorney fees and a penalty.
• Baeth v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (2014). The Workers' Compensation Court held that Judy Baeth has an occupational disease (asbestos-related lung disease) for which Stimson's insurer Liberty Northwest is liable, set her impairment at 45%, awarded medical benefits and costs, and denied her penalty and attorney fees.
• Monroe v. Maco Workers Comp Trust (2014). The Workers' Compensation Court held Lincoln County's insurer, MACo, liable for Dwane Monroe's asbestos-related disease and death under the last injurious exposure rule, found the claim timely, and awarded Karen Monroe widow's benefits, burial expenses and costs, but denied the estate's 100% permanent partial disability claim.
• Peterson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (2013). The Workers' Compensation Court held that Steve Peterson's occupational disease claim against Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (insurer for Stimson) was time-barred, so Liberty won and Peterson received no benefits.
• Johnson v. Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation (2009). The Workers' Compensation Court held that Raymond Johnson has an occupational disease from his Libby mill work, that Liberty Northwest (Stimson's insurer) is liable under the last injurious exposure rule, and awarded him permanent total disability benefits, a 25% impairment rating, medical expenses and costs.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Montana

• Gallegos v. BNSF Railway Company (2024). The court denied BNSF Railway's renewed motion for spoliation sanctions as procedurally improper and granted in part its motion to bifurcate, adopting the plaintiff's two-stage trial plan.
• Wells v. BNSF Railway Company (2024). The court denied BNSF Railway's motion for a mistrial, finding that its curative instruction to the jury cured any prejudice from Plaintiffs' counsel's questions.
• Wells v. BNSF Ry. Co. (2024). The court denied BNSF's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial on the strict liability claims, leaving the $4,000,000 per-plaintiff verdicts for the Wells and Walder estates in place.
• Gallegos v. BNSF Railway Company (2023). The district court denied BNSF Railway's motion for spoliation sanctions against the plaintiff (Ms. Moe's estate), finding BNSF had not shown good cause for an autopsy to obtain tissue samples.
• Morey v. BNSF Railway Company (2023). The district court remanded Karen Morey's asbestos suit against BNSF Railway to the Montana Asbestos Claims Court after the federal-officer defendant (RTX) was dismissed, so Morey obtained the state forum and BNSF's side lost the federal forum.
• Wells v. BNSF Railway Company (2023). The court denied BNSF's motion to stay and its motion for summary judgment on federal preemption, and granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion barring BNSF's nonparty and superseding-cause defenses as to W.R. Grace, Robinson Insulation, Grogan Robinson Lumber and the State of Montana.
• Moe v. BNSF Railway Company (2022). The court ordered that plaintiff Mary Diana Moe's pathology materials be delivered to BNSF Railway's defense counsel and its consulting pathologist for review under the conditions the parties agreed to.
• Aarstad v. BNSF Railway Company (2018). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings in full, held that CAFA's local controversy exception applied, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Montana state court, defeating BNSF and Swing's removal.
• McDowell v. Burlington Northern Santa FE Railway Company (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, and sent the case back to Montana state court because the State of Montana's presence as a defendant defeated complete diversity; BNSF lost its removal bid.
• US v. Grace (2009). On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court admitted the government's experts Dr. Weis and Dr. Lemen under Rule 702 but excluded the ATSDR Report and Peipins Study, and it granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to add new reliance materials, barring Libby sampling data first disclosed after August 23, 2006.
• United States v. Grace (2006). The court denied the defendants' (W. R. Grace and its executives') motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment for pre-indictment delay, ruling for the United States.
• US v. Grace (2006). In a criminal case against W.R. Grace and its officers, the court denied the defendants' motion to exclude health studies and product tests, granted the government's motions to exclude defense experts Biles and most of Rodricks' testimony, and reserved ruling on expert Eder until trial.
• US v. WR Grace (2006). The court granted Grace's motion to dismiss the parts of the Clean Air Act counts completed before November 3, 1999 as time-barred and granted the government's motion to dismiss the wire fraud counts without prejudice; it denied the defendants' other motions to dismiss.
• US v. Grace (2005). The district court denied the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars in its entirety, ruling for the United States and against W.R. Grace and the seven individual defendants.
• US v. WR Grace (2005). The district court denied the motion by W.R. Grace and the individual defendants to move their criminal trial out of Montana, so the government prevailed on the venue question.
• US v. WR Grace & Co.-Conn. (2003). After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the United States against W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. for $54,527,081.11 in Libby asbestos cleanup and health-study costs, and against Kootenai Development Corp. for $5,231,458.
• US v. WR Grace & Co. (2001). The court granted the United States' motion for immediate access, ruling that the EPA may enter W.R. Grace's and Kootenai Development Corporation's Libby properties for all statutory response purposes.