Texas Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Texas's courts and the federal courts there: 117 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Texas asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Texas asbestos exposure sites.

State appeals courts

Texas Court of Appeals

• Gilcrease v. Garlock, Inc. (8th District, 2006). The court of appeals held that the settlement credits were correctly applied to the actual damages but could not offset the $1 million exemplary damages award; it nonetheless reversed the take-nothing judgment for Garlock and remanded with instructions to transfer the suit to Bexar County for a new trial because the El Paso venue was improper.
• In re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (3rd District, 2006). The court of appeals denied the Fluor Defendants' petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion, leaving in place the MDL pretrial court's order remanding the case to the Travis County trial court; the plaintiffs prevailed.
• Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bailey (9th District, 2006). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the Baileys and rendered judgment for Mobil, finding no legally sufficient evidence that asbestos exposure at Mobil's facilities caused James Bailey's lung cancer.
• Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2006). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, holding the 2003 Texas successor-liability statute was constitutional as applied and barred Barbara Robinson's claims against it.
• Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores (13th District, 2004). The court of appeals overruled all nine of Borg-Warner's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment for Arturo Flores, including the $103,200 compensatory award and $50,000 punitive award.
• In re Roc (4th District, 2004). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's no-evidence summary judgments for all defendants and against the plaintiff workers and their family members, who had alleged asbestosis or silicosis from paints and coatings at two nuclear power plants.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (9th District, 2004). The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad, which favored the defendants over the plaintiff parents.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Shelton (12th District, 2003). The court of appeals modified the judgment to give Brown & Root a full $3,951,900 settlement credit, leaving it liable for $64,100, and otherwise affirmed Mrs. Shelton's judgment, including the gross negligence finding.
• In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2003). The court of appeals granted Sears' mandamus petition and directed the trial court to vacate its April 1 and May 12, 2003 discovery orders, which were overbroad, against the Fuerstenau plaintiffs.
• Brown & Root, Inc. v. Moore (6th District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against Brown & Root, holding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's malice finding and the $166,000 exemplary damages award for Nancy Moore and the heirs.
• Payne v. BNSF Railway Company (2nd District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing summary judgment for BNSF Railway Company against Donna Payne, holding that Neil Harrah's 2017 release barred her FELA claims for his lung cancer and death.
• Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (11th District, 2002). The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because directed verdicts were otherwise proper.
• Gilcrease v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. (4th District, 2001). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Tesoro Petroleum, holding Alaska's ten-year statute of repose barred the Gilcreases' mesothelioma claims brought in Texas.
• In re Kellogg-Brown & Root, Inc. (12th District, 2001). The court of appeals conditionally granted Kellogg-Brown & Root's mandamus petition, ruling the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to let the company withdraw or amend deemed admissions, so plaintiff Fambrough lost that ruling.
• North American Refractory Co. v. Easter (13th District, 1999). The court of appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Moss's estate, Easter, Roberts and the two spouses against North American Refractory Co. (NARCO), including the $1.5 million punitive award.
• Perez v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (1999). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, which had been based on its bankruptcy discharge, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in favor of the decedent's children.
• Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Walters (13th District, 1999). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, entered on a jury verdict of about $8.8 million, for Cecile Walters and the estate of Douglas Walters against Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, overruling all seven of its issues.
• White v. CBS Corp. (3rd District, 1999). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Westinghouse (CBS) and remanded, holding the statute of repose did not bar Pauline White's claims as a matter of law.
• Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Bilder (9th District, 1998). The court of appeals affirmed most of the judgment for Kay and Frank Bilder against Fuller-Austin Insulation, but sustained Fuller's points on the settlement credit and prejudgment interest and remanded for recalculation of the judgment.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Sitz (11th District, 1998). The court of appeals reversed the $20 million judgment for the Sitz family against Owens-Corning, holding the trial court wrongly applied offensive collateral estoppel on liability issues, and remanded the case.
• Pustejovsky v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (4th District, 1998). The court affirmed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Pittsburgh Corning and Rapid-American, holding the widow's mesothelioma claim was barred by limitations because it accrued in 1982 with the asbestosis diagnosis.
• Carter v. Temple-Inland Forest Products (9th District, 1997). The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the negligence (fear of cancer) claims of Carter and Wilson and remanded for trial, but affirmed summary judgment for Temple-Inland on the gross negligence claim.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Keeton (3rd District, 1996). The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for four plaintiffs and their spouses against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting all six of the company's points of error about evidence and the jury charge.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Schmidt (9th District, 1996). The court of appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's prejudgment interest calculation and its taxing of ad litem fees against the minor plaintiffs, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning, denying it a malpractice credit and a pro rata settlement credit.
• Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Wasiak (3rd District, 1996). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiffs (about $1.8 million compensatory and $3.7 million punitive damages) against Owens-Corning, overruling all eleven points of error.
• Click v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (1995). The appeals court reversed the directed verdict for Owens-Corning Fiberglass and Pittsburgh Corning and remanded for trial, ruling that the Click family had presented enough circumstantial evidence that George Click was exposed to the companies' products.
• Keene Corp. v. Rogers (6th District, 1993). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Jessie and Eleanor Rogers and Robert and Jo Emma Lofton against Keene Corporation, holding that the recusal, jury charge and expert testimony rulings were not error and that the erroneous admission of the Mancuso deposition and reports was harmless.
• Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993). The court of appeals affirmed the jury's zero past-damages awards for the workers and wives against Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard, Pittsburgh-Corning and Keene, but reversed the limitations bar against the Spikes plaintiffs and reversed the Burt and Friley judgments for a wrong prejudgment-interest start date, remanding each.
• Keene Corp. v. Gardner (5th District, 1992). The appeals court affirmed the judgment for the four plaintiffs against Keene Corporation, but vacated the trial court's order sanctioning Keene over the mediation and ordered the plaintiffs to refund any money Keene paid under it.
• Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool (6th District, 1991). The court affirmed the Williams judgment and, in the Pool/Strong/Sledge/Freeman case, affirmed in favor of the plaintiffs except that it set aside the $100,000 future medical award to Pool (new trial unless he remits) and the punitive damages against Garlock.
• Celotex Corp. v. Tate (13th District, 1990). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for Tate's heirs against Celotex (as successor to Philip Carey) and George Rowley, Inc., including actual and punitive damages, rejecting all eleven of Celotex's points of error.
• Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (9th District, 1988). The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Raymark Industries and the other asbestos product defendants, holding Mertice Pecorino's mesothelioma claim barred by limitations, and said the 1981 release and assignment would also have barred it.

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

• Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983). In Fults, the Fifth Circuit vacated summary judgment and ordered Nicolet's third-party complaint against Turner & Newall dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; in Hargrave, it affirmed summary judgment for Turner & Newall against Nicolet.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

• Waller v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1991). The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants Pittsburgh Corning, John Crane and the other defendants, holding Larry Waller's action was barred by the Kansas statute of repose.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

• Broyles v. US Gypsum Co. (2001). The federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for mandatory abstention, remanded the settlement-enforcement dispute to Texas state court, and denied the motions to sever Armstrong and Babcock & Wilcox, so plaintiffs prevailed over USG and Union Carbide.
• Boyett v. Keene Corp. (1993). After a jury verdict of $226,466.09 for Rosemary Boyett against Keene Corporation, the court refused to reduce it by the plaintiff's settlements with the shipowners and other manufacturers, and it denied States Marine Lines' (Isco's) claim for indemnification from Keene.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990). After a class trial of 2,298 asbestos plaintiffs, the court approved its sampling-based damages plan, set rules for prejudgment interest, the Johns-Manville settlement and punitive multipliers against Pittsburgh-Corning, Fibreboard and Celotex, and held ACL liable to only one plaintiff.
• Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990). After a jury verdict for the plaintiff class, the court dismissed the compensatory claims against Carey Canada, kept the punitive damages finding against it, left the contributory negligence findings in place, and set the accrual date for prejudgment interest. It also held ACL liable for Fibreboard products from 1951 to 1961 but declined to assess punitive damages against it.
• Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983). The court dismissed plaintiff's strict liability failure-to-warn claim against Johns-Manville because of the stipulated unforeseeability of the danger, but held the design defect claim survived, and stayed further proceedings under the defendant's Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
• Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981). The district court granted Forty-Eight Insulations' motions for discovery and leave to file cross-actions on a market share theory, denied the sixteen defendants' motion to reconsider the collateral estoppel order (amending it slightly), and certified the collateral estoppel question for interlocutory appeal.
• Flatt v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980). The court granted plaintiffs' partial summary judgment against Johns Manville and, in part, against Certain-Teed, holding that asbestos products are defective and unreasonably dangerous and barring relitigation of that issue, but denied it on whether Certain-Teed made or sold asbestos products.
• Migues v. Nicolet Industries, Inc. (1980). After a $3,000,000 jury verdict for the widow, the court applied the credit rule (crediting the $400,000 settlement against the verdict) instead of pro rata apportionment, rejecting Nicolet's request. It found the award excessive and ordered a remittitur to a $1.5 million verdict, or a new trial on damages if the plaintiff refused.
• Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980). The court granted plaintiff Mooney partial summary judgment, barring ten defendants from relitigating whether their asbestos insulation products were defective and unreasonably dangerous; it denied summary judgment against Nicolet on whether it made or sold asbestos products.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

• Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. (2025). The court granted Canal's summary judgment motion in full and Interstate's in part, ruling for Canal and Interstate on the Smith and Murray lawsuits and against Interstate on the Galier lawsuit, so Berkshire's contribution claim survived only as to Galier against Interstate.
• Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Company (2015). The court granted class certification for Erica P. John Fund's securities fraud class only as to the December 7, 2001 corrective disclosure and denied it as to the other five disclosures, finding Halliburton rebutted the price-impact presumption for those five.
• Kozak v. Guard-Line, Inc. (2008). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that removing defendant UOP failed to show Texas-citizen defendant Guard-Line was improperly joined, and sent the case back to the 116th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.
• Jacobs v. Tapscott (2007). The court granted the defendants' (attorney Tapscott and the law firm Baron & Budd) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, set aside the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
• Jacobs v. Tapscott (2006). The court granted summary judgment for lawyer Tapscott and Baron & Budd on most of the family's claims, but denied it on two grounds of the breach of fiduciary duty claim and on fee forfeiture, and denied the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' experts' supplemental opinions.

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas

• Gallo v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2023). The magistrate judge did not rule on the discovery dispute but proposed severing the claims against Carnival from the other 19 defendants and remanding the others to state court so discovery could proceed, and set a hearing on that idea.
• United Refining Co. v. Dorrion (2023). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the executor's wrongful-death claim against United Refining was discharged in the 1988 bankruptcy plan, subject to a limited remand on whether the executor forfeited an argument about the plan's definition of claim.