Toxic (Re)Tort | Mass & Toxic Tort Tracker
Key Court Opinions (State & Federal)
The Key Court Opinions section provides a comprehensive review of recent opinions and key case docket updates in state and federal courts, highlighting significant decisions and developments in toxic tort and environmental matters within an evolving regulatory landscape.
Select a state below to jump to relevant content on the page.
Georgia
Walker v. Becton Dickinson
May 7, 2025 | No. 21-c-08201 (Ga. St. Ct.).
A Georgia state court judge rejected a jury’s $50 million punitive award and declared a mistrial in that phase of the proceedings just days after a $20 million compensatory verdict. The mistrial was declared after a juror dissented during polling to the punitive verdict, which included conclusions on intent to cause harm. The verdict found Becton Dickinson and its subsidiary, Bard, responsible for the non-Hodgkin lymphoma that the plaintiff was diagnosed with in 2017.
Mississippi
Williams v. BP Exploration & Production Inc.
July 10, 2025 | No. 24-60095 (5th Cir.).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony that exposure to benzene and other chemicals released from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The district court found that the experts did not consider alternatives that could have caused the plaintiff’s pansinusitis.
Missouri
A.O.A. v. Rennert
July 11, 2025 | No. 4:11-cv-00044 (E.D. Mo.).
A federal district court judge issued a sweeping order excluding key expert testimony in ongoing lead smelting litigation. The judge agreed with the defendant’s position that the plaintiff’s expert overstated the association between arsenic exposure and neurological development, excluding this and other specific causation findings.
New York
Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.
July 25, 2025 | 2025 NY Slip. Op 04322 (N.Y. App. Div.).
The appellate division affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County awarding money damages following a jury verdict. On general causation, the court found that the combined testimony of the plaintiff’s expert epidemiologist and environmental scientist’s testing of the brakes sufficiently established that asbestos from automotive brakes can cause mesothelioma. On specific causation, the court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence through: (1) scientific testing showing levels of asbestos fibers released during brake work and cleanup activities; (2) the plaintiff’s testimony about his regular presence in the garage during brake jobs; (3) expert testimony establishing that a garage worker’s exposure could be estimated to a corresponding increased risk of developing mesothelioma; and (4) medical testimony that this cumulative exposure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s mesothelioma.
McLean v. Ashland LLC
July 7, 2025 | 2025 NY Slip Op 32489(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
The New York County Supreme Court issued a consolidated order on motions to dismiss from multiple defendants. The court denied motions to dismiss based on causation, finding that the plaintiff’s expert raised a triable issue of fact on whether benzene was the cause of the plaintiff’s cancer. The court also found that there was a triable issue of fact on the successor liability of DAP Products following its acquisition of DAP Inc. based on the purchase agreement between the companies, which included the purchase of the product line alleged to have caused the benzene exposure.
Pennsylvania
Pendergrass v. Ajax Magnethermic Corp.
June 24, 2025 | No. 1022 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct.).
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s orders granting a motion for summary judgment that dismissed strict liability, negligence, and wrongful death claims against the defendants, finding that the trial court did not err in its determination that the evidence was insufficient to draw a causal connection between Ajax furnaces, which incorporated asbestos-containing products such as asbestos paper or cloth, and the decedent’s mesothelioma.
Vermont
Carpin v. Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
May 2024 | No. 2024 VT 27 (Vt.).
The Vermont Supreme Court distinguished its prior holding on the statute of repose for injuries from noxious agents. The plaintiff argued that cell changes before the onset of the plaintiff’s mesothelioma constituted an occurrence for purposes of the 20-year statute of repose, but the court disagreed. The court found that those injuries were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s mesothelioma but were rather a step in the latent formation of the injury. Since the purpose of the statute of repose is to address causes in the formation of disease, and not the steps of the onset of disease, the statute of repose did not apply to the plaintiff’s claims.
Washington
Little v. Hardie-Tynes Co. Inc.
August 25, 2025 | No. 86318-5-I (Wash. Ct. App.).
The Court of Appeals of Washington reversed a lower court decision in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded for judgment in favor of the defendant under the state’s product line doctrine. Under that doctrine, a successor company must hold itself out as the continuation of the predecessor company by continuing to produce the same product line. In this case, the defendant purchased the predecessor company to liquidate it and did not continue manufacturing the alleged asbestos-containing product line, which included draft blowers and pumps, at issue in the case.
Cockrum v. C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc.
May 29, 2025 | No. 102881-4 (Wash.).
The Washington Supreme Court overturned its prior ruling, which had stated that because asbestos exposure is not certain to cause disease, an employer could not have had actual knowledge that injury due to asbestos exposure was certain to occur. The court’s new ruling holds that virtual certainty that a disease will occur is sufficient for an employer to have actual knowledge under Washington’s Industrial Insurance Act.