Williams v. Asbestos
95 So. 3d 497
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- J.C. Williams and his wife filed a petition for damages against multiple defendants alleging asbestos exposure; Williams died in 2009 from asbestos-related disease; survival and wrongful death claims were included.
- After partial summary judgments, the trial court dismissed UCC and Dow, held punitive damages unavailable, and denied partial summary judgment on comparative fault; judgments were certified final and appealable.
- On appeal, the court converted the devolutive appeal to supervisory review and held the trial court erred in finding damages indivisible and thus applying comparative fault.
- The court also held the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on punitive damages, requiring evaluation of subjective intent and state of mind.
- Genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Williams was exposed to asbestos at Taft (UCC) and at Dow, and whether such exposure was a substantial contributing factor.
- The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does comparative fault apply to Williams' claims? | Williams contends fault is divisible among defendants under Art. 2323/2324. | Defendants contend damages are indivisible due to asbestos's indivisible harm; fault cannot be apportioned. | Comparative fault applies; trial court erred by finding indivisible damages; jury will apportion fault. |
| Is punitive damages available under the facts? | Plaintiffs argue prior law on punitive damages applies to survival and wrongful death claims. | Defendants contend punitive damages are not applicable in this context. | Trial court erred; punitive damages require evaluation of subjective facts; remand for proper adjudication. |
| Did UCC exposure at Taft create a genuine fact issue as to causation? | Williams was exposed to asbestos at the Taft facility during multiple periods. | UCC evidence suggests limited or non-existent exposure and lack of substantial contribution. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment on causation improper; remand. |
| Did Dow exposure create a genuine fact issue as to causation? | Evidence shows Williams was exposed to asbestos around Dow facilities through proximity to others. | Dow argues lack of direct handling and reliability of plaintiff’s evidence. | Hearsay and admissibility concerns aside, material issues exist; trial court erred; remand for fact-finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Tenneco Oil Co., 531 So.2d 498 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1988) (punitive damages depend on state of mind; may not require specific conduct)
- Bonnette v. Conoco, Inc., 837 So.2d 1219 (La. 2003) (exemplary damages strictly construed as penalty)
- Coto v. J. Ray McDermott, S.A., 772 So.2d 828 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2000) (courts should not weigh credibility on summary judgment)
- Vodanovich v. A.P. Green Indus., Inc., 869 So.2d 930 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (burden to prove substantial contributing factor in exposure)
- Adams v. Marathon Oil Co., 688 So.2d 75 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1997) (state-of-mind concepts underpin punitive damages analysis)
- King v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 850 F.Supp.503 (W.D.La. 1994) (broad shield protection to art. 2315.3; relevance to product defendants)
- Bailey ex rel. Brown v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 76 So.3d 53 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (punitive damages not recoverable in wrongful death context)