North Carolina Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from North Carolina's courts and the federal courts there: 105 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see North Carolina asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see North Carolina asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

North Carolina Supreme Court

• Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985). The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for Owens-Corning and for the other defendant appellees, ruling for plaintiff J.W. Wilder against Owens-Corning, Eagle-Picher, Pittsburgh Corning, Celotex, Keene and Starr-Davis.

State appeals courts

North Carolina Court of Appeals

• Hinson v. Continental Tire the Americas (2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of the asbestosis claim of Walter Hinson's estate (and the common-issues rulings against all consolidated plaintiffs), so Continental Tire the Americas prevailed.
• Gaunt v. Guy M. Beaty & Co., Inc. (2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order reducing the employer Beaty and its insurer Berkley's workers' compensation lien against the Estate to zero, ruling for the Estate's personal representative.
• Penegar v. United Parcel Service (2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's findings that the worker's last injurious asbestos exposure occurred at UPS and its recalculated average weekly wage, and dismissed as moot the widow's appeal on the maximum compensation rate.
• Lovelace v. B&r Auto Service, Inc. (2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's opinion and award denying the estate's workers' compensation claim against Southern Truck Service, because Whitley's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred at his later self-employment, Built Rite.
• Ketchie v. Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. (2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission's order denying the workers' compensation claims of Ketchie and Joines against the N.C. Self-Insurance Security Association, holding they were not "covered claims."
• Richardson v. Pcs Phosphate Company, Inc. (2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Full Commission's Amended Opinion and Award, which held that Richardson's last injurious exposure occurred in 1995 while Broadspire was PCS's carrier, so PCS and Broadspire (the appellants) lost.
• Wise v. Alcoa, Inc. (2013). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of the estate's workers' compensation claim against Alcoa, finding the plaintiff failed to prove that asbestos caused the decedent's esophageal cancer.
• Johnson v. Covil Corporation (2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the Industrial Commission's death-benefit calculation for the widow, Edith Johnson, ruling that the 2006 maximum compensation rate applies and that she is owed 66 2/3% of average weekly wages ($538.41), and remanded for more specific findings and recalculation against Covil and its carriers.
• Kingston v. Lyon Construction, Inc. (2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, which denied the employer and its insurer's motion to introduce newly discovered evidence and reduced their workers' compensation lien on the worker's third-party asbestos settlements to zero; the worker won.
• Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2006). The Court of Appeals found no error in the trial and left in place the $7.5 million jury verdict for Williams's estate against CSX Transportation.
• Payne v. Charlotte Heating & Air Cond. (2005). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's award of total disability and death benefits to Mrs. Payne, the administratrix, against Ross and Witmer and Travelers, holding the death benefits claim was properly before the Commission and timely.
• Robbins v. Wake County Bd. of Educ. (2002). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Industrial Commission's award of workers' compensation to the estate of Gayle Robbins, finding her mesothelioma a compensable occupational disease, against the Wake County Board of Education.
• Bullard v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1979). The Court of Appeals reversed the Industrial Commission's order awarding death benefits to Bullard's widow and children, ruling for Johns-Manville and Travelers.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

• In re Bestwall, LLC (2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, of the claimants' and Maune Raichle's appeals from the bankruptcy court's contempt and sanctions orders, so Bestwall prevailed.
• Penegar v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (2024). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the executrix's Medicare Secondary Payer Act suit against Liberty Mutual for lack of Article III standing, so Liberty Mutual won and Penegar lost.
• Foushee v. RT Vanderbilt Holding Company, Inc. (2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for R.T. Vanderbilt Holding Company and Vanderbilt Minerals, holding the plaintiff did not show enough exposure to survive summary judgment.
• In re Bestwall LLC (2023). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's preliminary injunction that barred asbestos claims against non-debtor New GP, ruling for Bestwall and Georgia-Pacific and against the Asbestos Claimants Committee and the Future Claimants' Representative.
• Connor v. Covil Corporation (2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Covil Corporation, holding that Darrell Connor, suing for his father's death, had not shown enough exposure to Covil's asbestos insulation.
• Smith v. Schlage Lock Company, LLC (2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Schlage Lock Company and against Dorothy Smith, because there was no evidence Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos at the plant and, in any event, Schlage Lock was not liable for exposure incident to an independent contractor's work.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2020). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Ann Finch and her husband's estate against Covil Corporation, holding that the jury instruction on causation was proper and the $32.7 million compensatory award did not have to be reduced.
• Phillips v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2017). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Pneumo Abex, holding the jury's special verdict was consistent and the denial of Phillips' new trial motion was proper.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina

• Pike v. Dempster Industries, Inc. (2024). The court granted Defco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, including punitive damages, against it because Mr. Pike's exposure to Defco pumps was too infrequent to show causation.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2023). The court denied Ford's renewed motion for directed verdict, granted its motion to amend the judgment so that $6,888,500 in settlements offset the $275,000 verdict, interest and costs (leaving $0 owed), and granted in part and denied in part its objection to costs.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2022). The court granted Northwell's motion to intervene and AII's (joined by WCD) motion to vacate the September 25, 2020 protective order covering Mrs. Bell's identification as a subject of the Moline talc study. It denied the motions to seal, and plaintiff and Northwell lost on all three.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions of defendants Abex and Strick to reconsider its expert rulings: it corrected a clerical error and clarified that Herfel and McCloskey may authenticate Navy documents, but it kept its exclusion of their other testimony as duplicative.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion to reconsider the earlier partial denial of summary judgment, so Plaintiff Laura Walls's claims against Ford remained pending.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court denied plaintiff Laura Walls's motion for leave to supplement the record with a supplemental expert report from Dr. Holstein in opposition to the defendants' Daubert motions.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted defendant Pneumo Abex's motion in limine and Rule 702 motion, excluding documents, lay testimony and expert testimony about the mouse tumor data from Saranac Laboratory Experiment 774, a ruling against plaintiff Laura Walls.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions to exclude expert testimony before trial: plaintiff's experts may testify that each defendant's products contributed to and caused Mr. Walls' mesothelioma, but not that any exposure was a legal 'substantial factor'.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defenses, so the plaintiff won on assumption of risk, sophisticated user, workers' compensation exclusivity and several others, while the manufacturers kept contributory negligence, product misuse and intervening cause (in part) for trial.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022). The federal district court granted in part and denied in part six defendants' summary judgment motions and denied Abex's motion entirely: product liability claims survived against all seven defendants, punitive damages claims were dismissed against ZF, Carlisle, Strick, ArvinMeritor and Navistar, and loss of consortium was dismissed against Strick and Ford.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2021). The court granted American International Industries' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Lloyd Bell's claims because AII was not a legal successor to Neslemur under North Carolina law.
• Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2021). The court granted summary judgment to Covil, Daniel International, ViacomCBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and Air & Liquid Systems (as successor to Buffalo Pumps), denied the Brocks' cross-motions against Covil and Daniel, and dismissed the claims against those four defendants.
• Covil Corporation v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (2021). The court granted in part the insurer USF&G's motion to compel, requiring Covil to disclose the amount of its Zurich settlement and any allocation provisions tied to the Finch action, and denied the motion as to the TIG, Hartford and Sentry settlements.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021). The district court granted Covil Corporation summary judgment on all claims and excluded plaintiffs' expert Charles Ay, finding no evidence of exposure to Covil-attributable asbestos and, alternatively, no duty owed to the spouse of a non-employee; the case was dismissed.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Daniel International Corporation on all of Deborah and Kenneth McDaniel's claims and denied Daniel's motions in limine as moot.
• Reed v. Reichhold Liquidation, Inc. (2021). The court denied, without prejudice, Reichhold Liquidation's motion for summary judgment against the Reed plaintiffs, ruling that the sole proximate cause defense is likely no longer available under Iowa law and that factual disputes would remain even if it were.
• Vinson v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021). The court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Covil and ViacomCBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and dismissed the claims against them, and denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions against Covil and Daniel International.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The court granted summary judgment to DCo and Eaton on all claims, and to Morse Tec on the punitive damages claim, because plaintiff Laura Walls did not oppose the motions or present supporting evidence.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's motion to compel, ordering Plaintiff to give Abex and the joining defendants the grids and test results from her consulting expert's tissue analysis but not his opinions; the motions to join were granted and the parties were told to confer on expert fees.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motions to compel and for sanctions against CRA Trailers: CRA must give the plaintiff its Sales Index and pay part of her attorney's fees, but need not disclose net worth or former employees' contact information.
• Bell v. American International Industries (2020). The district court denied third-party defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service, to strike the third-party complaint, and to abstain or stay in favor of the Delaware case, so American International Industries' indemnity claim goes forward; it also denied AII's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
• Brock v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The court denied Albany International Corp.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding the Brocks made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction, and retroactively extended Albany's response deadline to May 3, 2019.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2020). The district court denied Zurich's motion to intervene and its Rule 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(4) motions to set aside Ann Finch's judgment against Covil, and denied Finch's motion to supplement the record as moot; Finch won and Zurich lost.
• Hill v. Mallinckrodt LLC (2020). The district court denied Mallinckrodt's Rule 12(b)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to join the settled general contractors, so the executor's wrongful-death suit proceeds.
• Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Aurora Pump, Anchor Darling Valve, Fisher Controls, William Powell, Covil and Viking Pump, and dismissed the widow's claims against them for lack of evidence of sufficient exposure to their products.
• Woolard v. Carrier Corporation (2020). The federal district court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Schneider Electric Systems (Foxboro), Chicago Bridge & Iron and Chicago Bridge & Iron (Delaware), dismissing the Woolards' claims against them.
• Zurich American Insurance Company v. Covil Corporation (2020). The court granted summary judgment to insurers Zurich and USF&G on how the Finch judgment is allocated among insurers and Covil by time on the risk, denied Covil's and the individual defendants' cross-motions on that point, and declined jurisdiction over all other declaratory claims, which were dismissed without prejudice.
• Finch v. Covil Corporation (2019). The district court denied Covil Corporation's motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial and for remittitur, leaving in place the $32.7 million jury verdict for Ann Finch.