It has been one year since the Texas Supreme Court’s July 11, 2014, opinion in Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., which outlined the test required for plaintiffs to succeed in asbestos litigation. Although only cited a few times over the past year, Bostic has gained some traction in other states, including New York, and could possibly be applied in non-asbestos toxic tort litigation.
In the Bostic decision, the Texas Supreme Court applied its reasoning from an asbestosis case, Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, in which the court held that a plaintiff must prove that exposure to a particular defendant’s asbestos was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s development of asbestosis. The court in Bostic extended this reasoning to the mesothelioma context, holding that proof of “some” or “any” exposure to asbestos is legally insufficient. Rather, plaintiffs are required to prove that their exposure to a defendant’s product was a “substantial factor” in bringing about their mesothelioma. The court explained that if “any exposure” to asbestos were sufficient to establish liability, companies would be held to an “absolute liability” standard if their product happened to cross paths with the plaintiff at any point during the plaintiff’s lifetime.
