South Carolina Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from South Carolina's courts and the federal courts there: 30 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see South Carolina asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see South Carolina asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

South Carolina Supreme Court

• Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, as modified, the court of appeals' decision upholding summary judgment for Covil Corporation (through its receiver) against Penn National, which had to indemnify Covil for the Rollins asbestos settlement.
• Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' ruling for Edwards (the estate of Stewart) against Scapa Waycross on causation, and dismissed the writ as improvidently granted on additur and reallocation of settlement proceeds.
• Jolly v. Fisher Controls International, LLC (2024). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, upholding the trial court's new trial nisi additur for the Jollys and its partial setoff of settlements, and remanded for Fisher and Crosby to accept the additur or elect a new trial.
• Keene v. Cna Holdings, LLC (2021). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding Dennis Seay was not Hoechst's statutory employee, so the $14 million actual and $2 million punitive verdict against CNA Holdings stood.
• Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2007). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the respondent manufacturers, finding the Hendersons failed to prove actionable asbestos exposure in South Carolina, and affirmed the exclusion of cumulative evidence on other asbestos diseases.
• Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2003). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the circuit court's dismissal under the Door Closing Statute, so the Murphys' suit against DuPont may proceed in South Carolina.

State appeals courts

South Carolina Court of Appeals

• Glenn v. 3M Co. (2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Fisher Controls' JNOV and new trial motions, the jury instruction rulings and the discovery sanctions, in favor of Rita Glenn, but remanded for the trial court to review the settlement documents and reconsider the setoff amounts.
• Protopapas v. Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA (2023). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the special circuit court's order, which rejected USF&G's statute of repose defense and held that asbestos personal injury claims against dissolved Covil Corporation were not barred; the Receiver prevailed over USF&G.
• Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (2022). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed partial summary judgment for Covil (through its receiver), holding that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company had to indemnify Covil for the Rollins asbestos settlement.
• Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (2022). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the judgment for Stewart's estate against Scapa, upholding the denial of JNOV, the additur increasing survival damages to $1 million, the refusal to reallocate settlement proceeds, and the exclusion of Stewart's bankruptcy trust claims.
• Jolly v. General Elec. Co. (2021). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court's denial of Fisher Controls and Crosby Valve's directed verdict, JNOV and motion to quash, its grant of new trial nisi additur to the Jollys, and its partial grant of setoff, so the Jollys kept their verdict.
• Keene v. Cna Holdings, LLC (2019). The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the circuit court's denial of CNA Holdings' motions for JNOV, new trial and remittitur, leaving the verdict for Seay's estate and wife in place.
• Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2001). The en banc Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Door Closing Statute and remanded, ruling for the Murphys against Rapid American and Du Pont.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina

• Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Metal Masters, Inc. (2022). The federal court granted Weist's motion and dismissed Amerisure's declaratory judgment action without prejudice, deferring to the pending South Carolina State Coverage Action; Amerisure lost and Weist and Metal Masters won.
• Robertson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2021). The district court granted Eaton Corporation's motion for summary judgment on all claims, ruling that plaintiff Robertson did not show frequent and regular exposure to Eaton's (Cutler-Hammer) motor starters.
• Warren v. 3M Company (2021). The court granted Plaintiff Cynthia Warren's motion to remand, finding Westinghouse's federal officer removal untimely, and returned the case to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas.
• Robertson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2020). The district court granted Covil Corporation's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Mary Ann Robertson because she did not show actionable exposure to a Covil asbestos product.
• Nicolas v. Johnson & Johnson (2019). The district court granted plaintiff Barbara San Nicolas's motion to remand to state court, finding removal timely but no 'related to' bankruptcy jurisdiction over her claims against Johnson & Johnson, and denied the defendants' motion to transfer to Delaware as moot.
• Bostic v. 3M Company (2018). The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court because Rite Aid of South Carolina was not fraudulently joined, so complete diversity was lacking; the request for attorneys' fees was denied as moot and the removing defendants' amended notice was struck.
• Chesher v. 3M Company (2018). The district court granted Crane Co.'s renewed motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs James and Cheryl Chesher because they lacked evidence that Crane's products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Matthews v. EI DU Pont DE Nemours and Company (2018). The court granted DuPont's renewed motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the claims of Kimberly Matthews, on behalf of herself and the estate of Jerry Matthews, because workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy.
• Chesher v. 3M Company (2017). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the Chesher plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims against Crane go forward; Crane may renew its substantial-factor argument after the Daubert ruling.
• Haskins v. 3M Company (2017). The district court granted Air and Liquid Systems' and Crane's motions to exclude Dr. Bedrossian's specific-causation testimony in both cases, and denied the motions as to other experts because plaintiffs conceded they would offer no specific-causation opinion.
• Dandridge v. Crane Co. (2016). The district court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiff Linda Dandridge, because she showed no genuine factual dispute that Crane owed her husband a duty to warn about asbestos flange gaskets.
• Sparkman v. Goulds Pumps, Inc. (2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the bare metal defense and denied Goulds Pumps' motion for summary judgment, but declined to revisit its earlier finding on proof of exposure to Goulds products.
• Bradley v. Richland County Landfill, Inc. (2014). The court granted plaintiff Bradley's motion to remand and sent the case back to South Carolina state court, rejecting the Landfill and the other defendants' federal officer removal.
• Sparkman v. AW Chesterton Company (2014). The district court granted Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment and its motion to strike an affidavit, ruling against the plaintiffs, the estate representatives of Elijah Sparkman, Jr., for lack of evidence of exposure to a Foster Wheeler asbestos product.
• Sparkman v. AW Chesterton Company (2014). The federal district court denied Research-Cottrell's motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against it go forward.
• Sparkman v. AW Chesterton Company (2014). The court granted Goulds Pumps' motion for summary judgment against the estate's representatives, holding Goulds could not be liable for asbestos in insulation and gaskets it did not manufacture or supply.
• Metal Trades, Inc. v. US (1992). The district court reversed the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and ordered the Navy to renegotiate the repair contract with Metal Trades, Inc. and cover its increased costs for removing asbestos insulation and lagging.