Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company, 2:20-cv-02389

This is an asbestos/mesothelioma suit: Callen Cortez alleges he contracted mesothelioma from workplace and take-home asbestos exposure, including exposure tied to his father Calise Cortez’s brief employment with Gabler Insulations, Inc. in late 1967.
At the time, Gabler was insured by American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. (AMLICO); AMLICO was liquidated and Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) now stands in for AMLICO.
LIGA moved for summary judgment arguing Cortez offered insufficient evidence that his father handled asbestos at Gabler or that any take-home exposure was substantial given the short employment period.
Cortez produced: his deposition testimony that his father returned from work covered in white dust; a corporate deposition from Entergy stating Nine Mile Point plant insulation contained asbestos; and original expert reports from an industrial hygienist and a physician opining para‑occupational exposure and causation (the court declined to consider later expert affidavits submitted only in opposition).
The district court concluded material factual disputes exist as to (1) whether the father was exposed to asbestos while at Gabler and brought fibers home, and (2) whether that exposure was a substantial contributing factor to Cortez’s mesothelioma, and therefore denied LIGA’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cortez had significant exposure via his father’s work at Gabler	Father worked as an insulator at Nine Mile Point in 1967; father came home covered in dust; Entergy testimony shows asbestos in plant insulation; experts link household contamination	No adequate evidence father worked with or was exposed to asbestos at Gabler; Entergy deposition inadmissible; disputed laundry/take‑home facts	Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment denied on exposure question
Whether any exposure from Gabler was a substantial factor in causing Cortez’s mesothelioma	Experts opine para‑occupational exposure from father materially contributed; short exposure period does not preclude substantiality under Louisiana law	Father’s employment was very brief so any exposure was minimal and not a substantial cause	Genuine issue of material fact exists; summary judgment denied on causation/substantiality

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and movant/nonmovant burdens)
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. en banc) (summary judgment procedural standards)
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (elements for asbestos claim; short exposure can still be a substantial factor)
Francis v. Union Carbide Corp., 116 So. 3d 858 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (reversing summary judgment where father’s "dusty" clothing supported take‑home exposure issue)
Zimko v. Am. Cyanamid, 905 So. 2d 465 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (industry practice evidence supports inference of household exposure)
Grant v. Am. Sugar Ref., Inc., 952 So. 2d 746 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (finding issue of fact where plaintiff washed father’s work clothes and household exposure was alleged)