A North Carolina appeals court has revived a dismissed asbestos-related workers’ compensation claim against Continental Tires, emphasizing the right to present individual evidence.
The claim was filed by Karen Denise Blue Gilbert, administrator of the estate of Gilbert Billy Larson Blue, alleging that Blue’s illness resulted from asbestos exposure while working at Continental Tires’ manufacturing facility. The named defendants are Continental Tires the Americas, General Tire, Inc./GenCorp., Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
This case is one of approximately 150 workers’ compensation claims brought by or on behalf of former employees against Continental Tires, all alleging illness from asbestos exposure at the same facility. Most of these cases were consolidated before the North Carolina Industrial Commission, with six selected as “bellwether” cases to present both specific and common evidence. The Industrial Commission found the common evidence in the bellwether cases insufficient to support a finding that employees were exposed to asbestos in a manner likely to cause asbestosis or any asbestos-related condition. This conclusion was previously affirmed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in Hinson v. Continental Tires the Americas.
Following that decision, Continental Tires moved to dismiss the remaining claims. Most plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases, but some, including the Gilbert estate, continued. The Industrial Commission dismissed these remaining claims, holding that the prior findings in the bellwether cases precluded further litigation under collateral estoppel and the “law of the case.”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The court held that, as explained in its simultaneously issued opinion in Funderburk v. Continental Tires the Americas, plaintiffs must be allowed to present evidence specific to their own claims. The prior bellwether findings only addressed the sufficiency of common evidence and did not resolve whether individual plaintiffs could prove exposure or illness based on more specific circumstances.
The court also noted that, while Continental Tires identified an agreement with the plaintiff regarding settlement funds, this did not constitute a binding stipulation that would prevent the plaintiff from presenting individual evidence.
The court’s opinion did not discuss any insurance policy clauses. The focus was on the procedural right of individual claimants to present their own evidence, even after bellwether cases have been decided.
With the Sept. 3 decision, the case is remanded to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings, allowing both sides to produce additional evidence. The decision is not final, as the case will return to the Commission for further action.
