Phillips 66 Co. v. Lofton
2012 Miss. LEXIS 279
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Lofton exposed to CPChem Flosal, an asbestos-containing drilling mud additive, on rigs 1964–1983.
- Lofton diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and asbestosis; trial awarded Lofton $15,198,407.66 against CPChem.
- Trial court allowed cross-examiner to read drilling records not admitted into evidence, prompting remand.
- CPChem argued MPLA design defect defense, arguing inherent characteristic of asbestos; Lofton argued feasible nonasbestos alternatives existed.
- Mississippi tolling/discovery issue: court held action accrues on discovery of injury, not injury and its cause; Lofton filed May 19, 2004, suit within three years.
- Court ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial due to prejudicial Exhibit 950 reading; other issues affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations | Discovered injury in 2003; filed 2004, within three years | Injury discovered by 1995–1996; statute began then | Accrual upon injury discovery; not time-barred; jury resolution affirmed |
| Whether Lofton proved design defect under MPLA | Evidence of defective design and feasible nonasbestos alternative | Inherent characteristic defense and lack of feasible alternative | Lofton proved design defect; inherent characteristic defense not dispositive |
| Whether exposure evidence meets Gorman-Rupp frequency/regularity proximity standard | Twenty years of frequent, proximate exposure to Flosal | Exposure insufficient or not properly shown | Sufficient frequency, regularity, and proximity established |
| Whether change of venue/voir dire deprived CPChem of fair trial | Jones County favorable; venue proper | Extensive local connections and publicity warranted transfer | No abuse of discretion; denial of change of venue affirmed |
| Whether Daubert/Mississippi Rule 702 exclusion should bar industrial hygiene testimony | Cohen’s testimony admissible for general industry standards | Cohen’s testimony largely unrelated to CPChem or Lofton; unreliable | On remand exclude non-applicable portions; admissible general industry testimony |
| Whether Exhibit 950 cross-examination was error warranting new trial | Exhibit 950 relevant to Lofton’s exposure history | Exhibit 950 was irrelevant and prejudicial | Exhibit 950 improperly admitted; new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lincoln Elec. Co. v. McLemore, 54 So.3d 833 (Miss. 2010) (discovery-rule for latent injuries; de novo review of limitations)
- Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So.2d 134 (Miss. 2005) (frequency/regularity/proximity standard in asbestos cases)
- Williams v. Bennett, 921 So.2d 1269 (Miss. 2006) (design-defect analysis under MPLA; feasibility of alternative design)
- Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2004) (venue-change considerations; pretrial publicity factors)
- Beec h v. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 691 So.2d 446 (Miss. 1997) (change of venue due to extensive pretrial publicity and local bias)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. King, 921 So.2d 268 (Miss. 2005) (inherent characteristics defense; burden on manufacturer)