Key Mesothelioma Court Cases in the United States: Landmark Decisions
Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. (5th Cir. 1973)
Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973), is the foundational mesothelioma decision. Claude Borel, an insulation worker who developed asbestosis and mesothelioma, sued multiple asbestos product manufacturers for failure to warn of known hazards.
The Fifth Circuit held that asbestos manufacturers could be held strictly liable under products liability doctrine for failing to warn workers of dangers they knew their products posed. The court rejected the state-of-the-art defense on the facts, finding that adequate warnings were feasible and that manufacturers had actual knowledge of the hazard. Borel established the failure-to-warn theory that has driven asbestos litigation ever since.
Amchem Products v. Windsor and Ortiz v. Fibreboard
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997): The Court vacated a proposed national class action settlement resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claimants, holding that the proposed class failed the cohesion and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. The diverse claims of different claimants could not adequately be represented by a single class. Amchem effectively ended the class action model for asbestos resolution.
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999): The Court rejected another proposed global asbestos settlement class, structured as a mandatory limited fund class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). Together, Amchem and Ortiz confirmed the individual case model that dominates today.
Daubert and Corrosion Proof Fittings
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993): Assigned federal trial judges a gatekeeping function for scientific expert testimony, requiring evaluation of methodology reliability before testimony is admitted. The four Daubert factors — testing, peer review, error rate, and general acceptance — govern scientific evidence in all federal courts and most state courts. Central to mesothelioma cases because causation experts are routinely challenged under Daubert.
Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991): Vacated the EPA's 1989 comprehensive asbestos ban, holding the agency failed to adequately consider less burdensome alternatives and meet TSCA's cost-benefit analysis requirements. The result: asbestos remains legal in limited uses in the United States, distinguishing it from most other developed nations.
Frequently Asked Questions
State court decisions on specific causation expert standards, particularly regarding the 'any exposure' causation theory versus more quantified specific causation methodologies, have produced significant doctrinal development. Third Circuit decisions in asbestos MDL proceedings regarding expert testimony and causation requirements are particularly important for federal practitioners.
Section 524(g) achieves some of the aggregate resolution goals of the rejected class action settlements — but through bankruptcy reorganization plan approval rather than Rule 23 procedures. The 75% current claimant vote requirement substitutes for class action certification. The tension between these mechanisms, and the constitutional adequacy of future claimant representation through the FCR, continues to generate academic analysis.
Related Articles
Need Legal Help Now?
Free consultation with a specialized mesothelioma attorney — no upfront costs, contingency fee only.
Find a Mesothelioma Lawyer →