Holcomb v. Georgia Pacific, LLC
128 Nev. 614
| Nev. | 2012Background
- Holcomb contracted mesothelioma and died in 2008; plaintiffs sued multiple manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products.
- Plaintiffs allege Holcomb was exposed to asbestos from joint-compound products and automotive brake components over several years while working as a construction laborer and brake mechanic.
- Plaintiffs offered pathology and medical expert opinions linking exposures to Holcomb’s mesothelioma (Dr. Gordon and Dr. Holstein).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the joint-compound defendants but largely denied it to automotive-brake defendants, and later certified the joint-compound orders as final.
- Nevada Supreme Court reviews causation standards for asbestos cases and whether the plaintiffs raised triable issues under summary judgment.
- Court adopts Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (as explained in Gregg) as the controlling causation test for mesothelioma.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which causation standard applies in Nevada mesothelioma cases? | Plaintiffs urge Rutherford/California approach or Lohrmann-style reasoning. | Defendants urge Flores or Rutherford-based standards to limit proof. | Adopt Lohrmann (frequency, regularity, proximity) per Gregg for mesothelioma. |
| Did appellants provide sufficient exposure evidence to defeat summary judgment for Kelly-Moore, Kaiser Gypsum, and Georgia Pacific? | Holcomb’s regular, proximate exposure shown; expert opinions support causation. | Plaintiffs failed to prove product-specific exposure or dosage; insufficient specificity. | Evidence raises triable issues for Kelly-Moore, Kaiser Gypsum, and Georgia Pacific; Union Carbide summary judgment affirmed. |
| Did Union Carbide qualify for summary judgment under the causation framework? | Union Carbide supplied asbestos; evidence shows multiple suppliers; exposure may implicate Union Carbide. | Plaintiffs failed to prove Union Carbide’s asbestos was in the specific products Holcomb used. | Summary judgment for Union Carbide upheld; no triable issue shown regarding Union Carbide’s products. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 941 P.2d 1203 (Cal. 1997) (substantial factor exposure standard in asbestos cases; broad, non-formulaic approach)
- Flores v. Borg-Warner Corp., 232 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007) (defendant-specific dosage plus substantial factor; dose-focused analysis rejected as over-stringent)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986) (frequency, regularity, proximity test for exposure to a defendant’s product)
- Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216 (Pa. 2007) (application of Lohrmann to mesothelioma; flexible, case-specific tailoring)
- Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992) (requirement of inference of probability of exposure for moving past summary judgment)
- County of Clark v. Upchurch, 961 P.2d 754 (Nev. 1998) (substantial-factor causation framework in Nevada context)
- Wyeth v. Rowatt, 244 P.3d 765 (Nev. 2010) (adopts substantial-factor causation approach in Nevada)