Washington Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Washington's courts and the federal courts there: 221 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Washington asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Washington asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Washington Supreme Court

• Wright v. 3M Co. (2023). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing ExxonMobil's requested § 343A "known or obvious" jury instruction, so the jury verdict for Wright's estate against ExxonMobil stood.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2021). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and reinstated in full the $81.5 million jury verdict for the Coogan family and estate against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA, affirming denial of a new trial, exclusion of the defense expert, and denial of CR 60 relief.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (2018). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, and remanded for further proceedings because Margaret Rublee raised a genuine factual issue on whether Pfizer was an apparent manufacturer of the asbestos products.
• Noll v. American Biltrite Inc. (2017). The Washington Supreme Court held that, on the allegations before it, the trial court properly dismissed Noll's claims against Special Electric without prejudice for lack of specific personal jurisdiction. It rejected the Court of Appeals' reasoning and remanded to the trial court, which may make its own jurisdictional finding on any new allegations.
• Walston v. Boeing Company (2014). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Boeing, ruling against Walston and his estate.
• Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2012). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held the trial court properly denied the respirator manufacturers' summary judgment motion, so the Maciases' failure-to-warn claims went back to the trial court.
• Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2009). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, held that the trial court erred in dismissing the Lunsfords' strict product liability claims against Saberhagen Holdings, and remanded for further proceedings, so the Lunsfords won and Saberhagen lost.
• Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment orders in favor of pump and valve manufacturers Buffalo Pumps, IMO, Crane and Yarway, against the Braaten estate.
• Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Company (2008). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, held the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing for forum non conveniens without considering the effect of MDL transfer, and remanded; Sales prevailed over Weyerhaeuser on this point.
• Simonetta v. Viad Corporation (2008). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and left in place the trial court's summary judgment for Viad Corporation, ruling against Joseph Simonetta on his negligence and strict liability failure-to-warn claims.
• Herring v. Texaco, Inc. (2007). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Todd Shipyards, holding Todd's bankruptcy discharged Herring's claim because he was entitled only to publication notice.
• Brewer v. Fibreboard Corp. (1995). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that the $175,000 Manville Trust settlement was reasonable but held the setoff should be only the $21,000 actually received, and remanded for recalculation of the judgment against Fibreboard, Owens-Corning Fiberglas and Pittsburgh Corning at $290,643.56, a result favoring the Brewers.
• Kilpatrick v. Dept. of Labor and Industries (1994). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for the Department of Labor and Industries and held the three widows were entitled to survivor's benefits at the 100 percent rate, remanding for attorney fees and further proceedings.
• Falk v. Keene Corp. (1989). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the defense verdict for Keene Corporation and other manufacturers, holding that the instructions allowed the jury to apply ordinary negligence to the design defect claim, and remanded for retrial in favor of the Falk plaintiffs.
• Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989). The Washington Supreme Court held the statutory cap on noneconomic damages (RCW 4.56.250) unconstitutional under the state jury-trial right, rejected the defendants' claims of trial error, and reinstated the jury's full award to the Sofies against the asbestos manufacturers.
• Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (1987). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court, leaving in place the $183,372 jury verdict for Albert Lockwood against Raymark Industries.
• White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1985). The Washington Supreme Court answered the federal court's certified question yes, holding the discovery rule applies to wrongful death and survival actions, so the widow's claims against the asbestos defendants were not barred as a matter of law.

State appeals courts

Washington Court of Appeals

• Cockrum v. Murphy (1st Division, 2024). Affirmed summary judgment dismissing the Cockrums' personal injury suit against Howmet Aerospace (Alcoa's successor), and denied Howmet's request for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
• Olson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (1st Division, 2024). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Joy Global (P&H) on all claims, rejecting the estate's argument that the trial court should have given an ongoing duty to warn instruction.
• Sorrentino v. Ammco Tools, Inc. (1st Division, 2024). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Sorrentino's estate against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America, upholding the denial of their JMOL motion, their three proposed jury instructions, and personal jurisdiction over VWAG.
• Buckholtz v. American Optical Corporation (2nd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals held that Zidell Explorations owed Woodruff a duty as owner of at least one ship he worked on, but not as lease guarantor, and that the trial court wrongly found spoliation; it remanded to vacate the judgment against Zidell Explorations and for a new trial.
• Holdsworth v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict of about $16.7 million for the Holdsworth estate and Sherrie Holdsworth against Scapa Waycross, and upheld the denial of Scapa's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
• Lewis v. Washington State Department OF Labor and Industries (2nd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's order upholding the Board's denial of permanent surviving spouse benefits to Diane Lewis, so the Department of Labor and Industries prevailed.
• Welch v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Brand Insulations and Haskell Corporation based on the construction statute of repose, ruling for the Welches, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's $13,426,000 verdict for Raymond Budd against Kaiser Gypsum Company, rejecting all of Kaiser's challenges.
• Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (1st Division, 2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking Marjorie Carroll's complaint against Nissan as a discovery sanction and remanded, and affirmed the $1,000 fee sanction against attorney Owens, rejecting Nissan's cross-appeal.
• Hickson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (1st Division, 2022). Affirmed summary judgment for ARCO and Brand Insulations, dismissing the estate's claim that asbestos exposure at the Cherry Point refinery caused Duane Hickson's mesothelioma.
• Roemmich v. 3M Company (1st Division, 2022). The court affirmed the verdict for 3M on the strict products liability claim, but reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Roemmiches' negligence claim because of an erroneous proximate cause instruction and an unsupported superseding cause instruction.
• Wright v. 3M Company (1st Division, 2021). The court affirmed the jury's $4 million verdict for Wright against ExxonMobil (Mobil), but vacated the judgment and remanded for a new settlement reasonableness hearing because the settling parties never provided the full settlement agreements.
• 1Up Floors, LLC v. Department of Labor & Industries (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' decision, upheld by the superior court, that 1Up Floors committed serious WISHA asbestos violations and that the Department's penalty calculations stood; 1Up lost.
• CBS Corporation v. Ulbricht (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's finding that the $4.5 million covenant judgment for the Ulbricht family against PM Northwest was reasonable, rejecting the appeal by insurer USF&G.
• Clevenger v. John Crane, Inc. (1st Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment for John Crane, Inc. entered on a defense jury verdict and remanded for a new trial, ruling for Era Clevenger because the proximate cause instruction was misleading and prejudicial.
• Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed the liability verdict against Genuine Parts Company and NAPA but reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial on the estate's pain and suffering claim and on the consortium and loss of services claims.
• Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2nd Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Parsons Government Services and Brand Insulations, holding the construction statute of repose barred the Browns' claims.
• Cameron v. Atlantic Richfield Company (1st Division, 2019). The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment for PacifiCorp, holding the 1967 repose statute bars Linda Cameron's claims arising from construction activities but not those arising from PacifiCorp's status as a premises owner, and remanded.
• Hoffman v. Ketchikan Pulp Co. (2nd Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ketchikan Pulp Co. against Hoffman, his wife and his estate, holding that Alaska's statute of repose barred the claim.
• Leren v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Estate of Marvin Leren against Elementis Chemicals, holding Elementis liable as successor to a raw-asbestos distributor, upholding the noneconomic damages award, and approving the refusal to give a superseding cause instruction.
• Noll v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (1st Division, 2019). The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to make findings of fact on personal jurisdiction over Special Electric, because it could not tell why the trial court had found Candace Noll's evidence insufficient; the court retained jurisdiction over the appeal.
• Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2018). Affirmed dismissal of the estate's wrongful death action against Brand Insulations, which had lost the prior survivorship trial, but reversed dismissal as to CBS and Parsons and remanded for reinstatement of those claims.
• Advance Environmental Inc. v. Director Washington State Department OF Labor and Industries (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court and affirmed the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals' decision upholding the Department of Labor and Industries' citation against Advance Environmental for a serious violation of the 10-day asbestos notice rule.
• Estate OF Brandes v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict for Barbara Brandes's estate against Brand Insulations and reversed the trial court's remittitur, ordering the full $3,500,000 verdict reinstated.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corporation (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a fact issue that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of the asbestos refractory products.
• Woo v. General Electric Company (1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the Woo Estate's claims against General Electric and remanded for trial, because fact issues existed on GE's duty to warn and on causation.
• Hoffman v. General Electric Company (2nd Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's CR 12(b)(6) dismissal of Larry Hoffman's claims against General Electric and Ketchikan Pulp Company and remanded, so Hoffman prevailed on the appeal, although the 'defective product' exception was held not to save his claim against Ketchikan.
• Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (1st Division, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pfizer, holding that Margaret Rublee's evidence did not create a genuine issue of fact that Pfizer was liable as an apparent manufacturer of Insulag and Panelag.
• Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of about $4.5 million entered on the jury verdict for the Estate of Edwin Estenson against Caterpillar, upholding denial of summary judgment, a new trial, and vacatur of the verdict.
• Kalahar v. Alcoa, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The court affirmed summary judgment for Alcoa, dismissing the Kalahars' mesothelioma suit because they could not show Alcoa knew injury was certain to occur.
• Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's CR 12(b)(2) dismissal, holding Washington may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Special Electric, so Noll's estate won on this issue.
• Ehlert v. Brand Insulations, Inc. (1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Brand Insulations, upholding dismissal of the widows' strict liability claims, the general negligence instruction and exclusion of the newspaper articles, and did not reach Brand's cross appeal.
• Farrow v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (1st Division, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's exclusion of Wortman's deposition testimony and its summary judgment for Flowserve, ruling for the Farrows and remanding for further proceedings.