Holloway v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. 557 So. 2d 611 (Fla. App. 1990, review denied)
The Florida Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in this asbestos case, holding that the record reflects a material fact issue with regard to whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred under the Florida statute of limitations.
Oakes v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 546 So. 2d 427 (Fla. App. 1989)
The Florida Court of Appeals reinstated in full a verdict awarded by the jury, holding that the trial court impermissibly reduced the amount of the award after trial.
Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1987)
In answer to a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court held that a military contractor may assert a defense if it supplied a product according to specifications by the federal government. The Florida Supreme Court also held that the defense did not apply to products that were also sold to non-government consumers or where the company did not warn the government about the product’s hazards. As a result of this holding, Baron & Budd won a summary judgment ruling that the defendant could not assert the defense in this case and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Mashburn v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 489 So.2d 1194 (Fla App. 1986, review denied)
The Florida Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in this asbestos case, holding that there was a material issue of fact as to when the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts giving rise to his cause of action.
Eagle Picher Indus., Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517 (Fla. App. 1985, review denied)
In this widely cited opinion, the Florida Court of Appeals held that a victim of asbestosis may later have a second lawsuit for asbestos-related cancer if he develops cancer at a future date. The court also held that evidence of the risk of future cancer was admissible at his asbestosis trial to prove his present fear of developing cancer. This was one of the earliest cases in which a state court recognized that latent diseases such as asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer are separate and distinct, and that victims of such disease have the right to recover their damages for both– even if the cancer develops long after the discovery the earlier.
Vilardebo v. Keene Corp., 431 So.2d 620 (Fla. App. 1983, appeal dism’d)
Baron & Budd convinced the Florida Court of Appeals that barring an asbestos victim’s lawsuit under Florida’s statute of limitations because the plaintiff was last exposed to asbestos decades before he was diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease violated his right of access to the courts under the Florida Constitution. The court also held that the trial court impermissibly shifted the summary judgment burden onto the plaintiff on the issue of his exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing products.
Brown v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 441 So.2d 1098 (Fla.App. 1983, review denied)
The Florida Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing an asbestosis victim’s case because he had suffered symptoms of asbestosis for years prior to the diagnosis of the disease. The court held that material fact issues existed as to whether the plaintiff knew or should have known prior to the statute of limitations period that he had a cause of action for his asbestos-related injuries.
Results depend on the facts of each case.