Indiana Supreme Court Upsets Precedent in Finding Statute of Repose Unconstitutional in Asbestos Case

March 2016

In a 3-2 decision filed Wednesday, March 2, the Indiana Supreme Court rocked well-settled Indiana law by ruling that Indiana's 10-year statute of repose for products liability actions is unconstitutional as applied to asbestos cases. See the Indiana Product Liability Act (the "Act"), at Ind. Code §§ 34-20-1-1, et seq.

The decision in Larry Myers, et al. v. Crouse-Hinds, et al.; GE v. Mary R. Geyman, et al.; Owens-Illinois, Inc v. Mary R. Geyman, et al. ("Myers") overturns precedent set in 2003 by the Court in AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, where it had found the entirety of the Act to be constitutional as applied to asbestos cases. The Myers majority opinion was met with strong dissent from Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush and Justice Mark S. Massa, who cited stare decisis (the need for judicial consistency) and the fact that the reasoning relied upon by the majority was argued to no avail in the Ott dissent.

The Act as Applied to Asbestos Cases

The Act's repose provision is broken into two statutory sections. The first provides a 10-year statute of repose for all products liability actions. The second provides an exception that allows claims against commercial miners and sellers of raw asbestos even after 10 years of exposure. In Myers, however, the Court declared that this "carve out" violated the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of Indiana's Constitution. The Court reasoned that the carve out, without a reasonable justification, impermissibly distinguished between those plaintiffs injured by defendants who mined and sold raw asbestos and those injured by product defendants who fell outside that category.

The Supreme Court's Decision and Its Impact on Asbestos Litigation

After invalidating the exception clause in its entirety, the Court reverted to its 1989 decision Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., which interpreted the statute of repose prior to the enactment of the exception for commercial sellers and manufacturers. In Covalt, the court held that "a plaintiff may bring suit within two years after discovering a disease and its cause, notwithstanding that the discovery was made more than 10 years after the last exposure to the product that caused the disease" where the injury was "caused by a disease which may have been contracted as a result of protracted exposure to a foreign substance," such as asbestos. Relying on Covalt, the Court determined that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring their asbestos-related actions, regardless of the type of defendant and the length of time it had been since the plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos, because the plaintiffs brought suit within two years of discovering their asbestos-related illnesses.

As Justice Massa explained in his dissent, Myers has taken "clear and predictable" law where defendants could be "free from indefinite liability exposure" after a reasonable amount of time and turned it on its head. Now, manufacturers and distributors previously protected from asbestos litigation in Indiana are exposed and subject to liability in the state. Without the statute of repose as a potential obstacle, Indiana state courts might see a rise in asbestos-related filings from litigants who previously might have filed suit in states where their claims against these product defendants would not be time barred.

Myers stands in stark contrast with the recent Illinois Supreme Court decision, Folta v. Ferro Engineering, where the court shielded employers from the asbestos-related claims of former employees whose injuries manifested after the 25-year statute of repose provided by the state's Workers' Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts. The Folta decision, unlike Myers, brought relief to employers and insurers in a state where asbestos-related lawsuits recently reached historic highs.

Click under "Resources" below to read the full text of the Myers decision.

For more information regarding the Myers decision, asbestos litigation, or other environmental and toxic tort-related litigation, please contact Douglas M. Nieder, Corey M. Schaecher, David A. Weder, or Krista C. McCormack. For more information about our products liability practice, please contact C. David Goerisch.

Resources

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

COVID-19 Rescue Plan Act Expands Paid Leave Availability but Does Not Revive Employer Mandates

More
Client Alert

Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Overtime Wages Judgment Resulting from Employer-Mandated Screenings Under the Portal-to-Portal Act

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Hands Down Unanimous Decision Limiting FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Relief

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Two Lewis Rice Members Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Programs

More
Client Alert

Temporary COBRA Changes Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More
Client Alert

Federal Appellate Court Determines a Website Is Not a “Place of Public Accommodation” Under the ADA

More
News

Lewis Rice Welcomes 2021 Summer Associates

More
Client Alert

EEOC Issues Updated Guidance on COVID Vaccination Policies

More
Client Alert

CROWN Act Legislation on the Verge of Passage in St. Louis City & County

More
Client Alert

DOL Publishes Cybersecurity Guidance for Benefits Plans

More
Client Alert

The Changing Workplace Following the Latest CDC Mask Guidance

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Lewis Rice Member Ronald A. Norwood Serves on Missouri Bar’s Special Committee on Lawyers of Color to Establish Diversity, Inclusion Programs

More
Client Alert

Model COBRA Notices Under the American Rescue Plan Act

More
Client Alert

Public Access to Electronic Court Records in Missouri

More
News

Meghan S. Largent and Lindsay S. C. Brinton Negotiate $700,000 Award to Cobb County, Georgia Landowners in Rails-to-Trails Case

More
News

Jeannine Moentmann Becomes President of St. Louis Paralegal Association for 2021-2022

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Gives Advice on Vaccination Acceptance in the Workforce in Society for Human Resource Management Article

More
Client Alert

The New Standard Contractual Clauses: Scope, Impact, and Next Steps

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast Hosts Ronald A. Norwood to Discuss Mentorship, Diversity & Inclusion in the Legal Industry, and the Importance of Equity for All

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond Presents at Webinar for Experienced Construction Attorneys

More