Toxic (Re)Tort | Mass & Toxic Tort Tracker

Key Court Opinions

The Key Court Opinions section provides a comprehensive review of recent opinions and key case docket updates in state, territory, 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.

Federal

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell 

June 25, 2026 | No. 24-1068 (U.S.).

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Missouri judgment entered on a Roundup failure-to-warn verdict, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempted the plaintiff’s state-law claim. The Court reasoned that the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to EPA-approved Roundup labeling and that state tort duties qualify as “requirements” under FIFRA’s express preemption provision if they impose labeling obligations “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. 

In re East Palestine Train Derailment

May 1, 2026 | No. 4:23-cv-00242 (N.D. Ohio).

The Northern District of Ohio denied Rule 60 motions brought on behalf of certain class members seeking relief from the final settlement approval order and nonenforcement of voluntary personal injury releases. The court held that the movants failed to establish fraud on the court and that Rule 60 could not be used to rescind releases signed in exchange for personal injury/exposure payments, including releases that expressly contemplated unknown future injuries. 

Wells v. BNSF Railway Co.

February 24, 2026 | No. 24-4802 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit reversed a jury verdict for plaintiffs who allegedly developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos during BNSF’s transportation of asbestos-containing vermiculite from “the world’s largest vermiculite mine” to its railyard in Libby, Montana, and from there to destinations nationwide. The court held that Montana’s common‐carrier exception applied, which bars the imposition of strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity if the activity is undertaken pursuant to a public duty imposed on the actor as a common carrier. Because federal law required BNSF to haul the vermiculite, its resulting asbestos dust was a byproduct of its public-duty transport activity. The court found that BNSF was acting as a common carrier and could not be held strictly liable for the abnormally dangerous activity of moving the ore. The Ninth Circuit vacated the strict‐liability judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for BNSF. 

California

Cox v. Ford Motor Co.

March 27, 2026 | 25STCV26203 (Cal. Super. Ct.).

The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment in a mesothelioma action alleging occupational exposure to asbestos-containing automotive friction products. Ford argued that summary judgment should be granted because the plaintiffs had not submitted evidence that they were ever exposed to an asbestos-containing product supplied by Ford. The plaintiffs did not contest that Ford did not supply the asbestos-containing products but instead relied on the theory that Ford may be liable for the asbestos-containing aftermarket gaskets, clutches, and brakes to which Cox was exposed because Ford vehicles were designed to operate with these products. The court rejected this theory. Looking to California precedent, the court ruled that simply being designed to work with asbestos-containing products is not enough because the at-issue products did not require the use of an asbestos-containing product and could function without them.

Cadena v. City of San Diego 

February 17, 2026 | No. D084784 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Employees of the City of San Diego sued the city and city officials for asbestos exposure in the workplace. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the city, finding that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy available to the employees. The court rejected the employees’ argument that their injuries fell within an exception to workers’ compensation claims if the injury was aggravated by an employer’s concealment of the hazard, finding that actual knowledge of the hazard was required and it was not enough to submit evidence that may show they should have known of the hazard. 

Faulk v. General Electric

February 3, 2026 | No. 2:23-cv-05132 (C.D. Cal.).

In this “take-home” asbestos case, the plaintiffs sued for damages related to the decedent’s mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos brought home on her father’s clothing from working at Lockheed’s aerospace plant in the 1960s and 70s. Lockheed moved for summary judgment on causation. The court held that the plaintiffs could not support a reasonable inference of the decedent’s father’s exposure to asbestos from Lockheed based on purely circumstantial proof (e.g., the father’s job title, years of service, and industry studies), and there was no evidence the father actually worked with asbestos attributable to Lockheed. The court remarked that the plaintiffs’ experts’ generalized opinions that aircraft manufacturers used asbestos broadly were not tied to the specific nature of the father’s work at Lockheed. The court held that this at best showed a “possibility” of exposure, not that the exposure was a substantial contributing factor. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the claims against Lockheed. 

Colorado

Smith v. Terumo BCT Inc.

October 30, 2025 | No. 24CA1393 (Colo. Ct. App.).

A class of plaintiffs sought medical monitoring after alleged exposure to ethylene oxide since 1988. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing, holding that a plaintiff cannot establish standing to sue based solely on an allegation that the defendant’s negligent conduct may increase his future risk of illness or injury without a present physical manifestation of illness or disease.

Connecticut

Green v. United States Steel Corp.

September 23, 2025 | No. UWY-CV-22-6079639 (Conn. Super. Ct.).

The plaintiff sued various manufacturers to recover damages associated with contracting non-Hodgkin lymphoma allegedly due to his exposure to products containing benzene while working as an automotive mechanic. Defendants Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. and Pidilite USA Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing that they purchased the assets of the companies that produced the benzene-containing products, but did not acquire those companies’ liabilities and therefore could not be held liable for any injury allegedly incurred before the dates they purchased the assets. The plaintiff argued that they were liable because they continued to make the same product after purchasing the assets, invoking the product-line continuation exception to the general rule that a purchaser of corporate assets is not legally responsible for the seller’s liabilities. The court ruled in the defendants’ favor, finding that Connecticut does not recognize the product-line continuation exception.

Florida

Maxner v. American Contract Systems Inc.

March 5, 2026 | No. 2:25-cv-00476 (M.D. Fla.).

The plaintiff alleged that he inhaled ethylene oxide emitted from a medical-supply sterilization facility next to his workplace and asserted strict liability claims under the Florida Water Quality Assurance Act. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the strict liability claim, ruling that the act required a pollutant to affect or be present on land or in water and that allegations of purely airborne ethylene oxide emissions, without allegations that the substance reached land or water, were not enough to trigger statutory strict liability. 

Georgia

Burroughs v. Strength of Nature Global LLC

October 15, 2025 | No. S24G1387, S24G1388 (Ga.).

The plaintiff alleged that phthalates in her hair care products, used over the course of 27 years, caused her to develop uterine fibroids. Georgia law imposes a 10-year statute of repose for products liability actions; no action may be commenced if the personal injury was suffered 10 years after the date of the first sale for use or consumption. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected the manufacturers’ argument that the 10-year statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s claim, holding that the statute of repose begins to run on the sale of each unit to the intended consumer. 

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

Lotrean v. 3M Co.

May 26, 2026 | No. 2024-03189 (N.Y. App. Div.).

The New York Appellate Division unanimously reversed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish general causation. The plaintiff alleged that his myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) was caused by exposure to solvents at his father’s autobody shop. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that solvents containing or contaminated with benzene caused MDS. 

Drag v. Rector, Church-Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the City of N.Y.

February 3, 2026 | No. 518761/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

The Kings County Supreme Court granted summary judgment to a property owner against the restoration worker plaintiffs, dismissing New York Labor Law claims of lead exposure stemming from window restoration work at a chapel. The court found that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the manner and means of the work on the property, and there was no dangerous condition on the property that would impose liability because the removal of the lead paint was an integral condition of the work the plaintiffs were hired to do. 

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.

U.S. Virgin Islands

Burt v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

March 24, 2026 | No. SX-2021-CV-548 (V.I. Super. Ct.).

A construction worker alleged his pneumoconiosis, a latent occupational disease, was caused by exposure to toxic dust during employment at a facility operated by the defendant. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of workers’ compensation. The court ruled that the Virgin Islands Workers’ Compensation Act does not apply to former employees alleging a latent disease. As a result, a former worker may bring a claim in tort without being barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions.

Washington

Bauer v. Boeing Co.

May 18, 2026 | No. 87593-1-I (Wash. Ct. App.).

The Washington Court of Appeals determined that Washington law recognizes a preconception duty of care owed by an employer to the not-yet-conceived offspring of an employee, within the limits of foreseeability. A child of a Boeing employee born with severe congenital defects brought a negligence claim against the defendant for the alleged exposure of the child’s father to volatile organic solvents and heavy metals at a Boeing plant. Boeing moved to dismiss the complaint and the appellate court upheld the denial, holding that the harm to an employee’s future offspring was reasonably foreseeable and the defendant was aware that paternal exposure to chemicals the plaintiff’s father worked with could lead to birth defects. The court further held that the Washington Industrial Insurance Act’s exclusivity provision did not bar the child’s claim because the child’s injuries were separate and distinct from the father’s.

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.

Wisconsin

Estate of Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Co.

April 15, 2026 | No. 2022AP723 (Wis.).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict against Pabst Brewing Company under the state’s safe-place statute for a steamfitter’s mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure at Pabst’s brewery. The court held that Wisconsin’s safe-place statute’s heightened duty of care applies even when the injured party was an independent contractor so long as the premises owner retained sufficient control over the place where the work occurred. The court further held that a reasonable jury could have determined from the facts that Pabst retained control over the workplace, subjecting it to the higher standard of care.