Bradberry v. Carrier Corp., 86 So. 3d 973

Betty Bradberry and Inez T. Jones, as personal representatives of their decedents’ estates, appeal from summary judgments for Carrier Corp. and others in a wrongful-death asbestos-exposure action.
Decedents Roland E. Bradberry and George D. Jones allegedly died from asbestos exposure at Marathon Oil and/or U.S. Steel between 1920 and 1990.
Plaintiffs alleged joint and several liability against defendants for installation, use, warning, maintenance, removal, and general exposure to asbestos at work sites.
Leslie Controls, Inc. filed for bankruptcy; automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 as to Leslie Controls was invoked.
The trial court stayed Leslie Controls but proceeded with summary-judgment proceedings against solvent defendants; the court later granted in favor of solvent defendants and the plaintiffs challenged the rulings on appeal.
The issue presented includes whether the automatic stay abated the entire action against all defendants, whether the case could be (and was) split to proceed against solvent defendants, and whether res judicata or collateral estoppel would bar later claims against Leslie Controls.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 362 automatic stay applies to solvent co-defendants	Bradberry contends stay extends to all defendants	Leslie Controls' bankruptcy triggers stay only as to the debtor	Stay does not extend to solvent co-defendants.
Whether proceeding against solvent defendants without severing Leslie Controls violated the stay	Action indivisible; severance required	Stay can coexist with action against solvent defendants	Proceeding against solvent defendants did not violate § 362.
Whether wrongful-death action may be split across defendants without improper splitting of the claim	Single wrongful-death action; cannot be split	Wrongful-death action may be pursued against joint tortfeasors separately	No impermissible splitting; single cause of action with multiple defendants allowed.
Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel bars later claims against Leslie Controls	Identity of parties/claims could bind Leslie Controls	No privity or identity of interest with solvent defendants; exposure issues are defendant-specific	Res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar later litigation against Leslie Controls.

Snow v. Baldwin, 491 So.2d 900 (Ala. 1986) (automatic stay does not extend to solvent co-defendants of the debtor)
Fortier v. Dona Anna Plaza Partners, 747 F.2d 1324 (10th Cir. 1984) (bankruptcy stay stays only the debtor, not co-defendants)
Williford v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1983) (automatic stay does not extend to solvent co-defendants)
Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1983) (automatic stay limitation on co-defendants)
Austin v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 705 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983) (co-defendant stays not extend to solvent co-defendants)
Pitts v. Unarco Indus., Inc., 698 F.2d 313 (7th Cir. 1983) (co-defendant stay does not cover solvent defendants)
Lynch v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 710 F.2d 1194 (6th Cir. 1983) (co-defendant stay limitations in asbestos cases)