Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific

Case Updates

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court ruling that invalidated a $12.3 million asbestos verdict against the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient proof that the defendant’s product was a “substantial factor” in causing the decedent’s mesothelioma. The court relied on a 2007 ruling to emphasize that an asbestos plaintiff must prove more than “any exposure” to an asbestos-containing product in order to prove causation – a key argument advanced by the Chamber and its co-amici.

The U.S. Chamber and a coalition of associations urged the Texas Supreme Court to reject the so-called “any exposure” theory of liability for asbestos cases. In such cases, “expert” witnesses rely on a highly speculative theory, rejected by most courts, to bypass normal tort causation requirements. The Chamber argued in its amicus brief that the any exposure theory, and thus the expert’s testimony, should be rejected since it is speculative, unreliable, and not based on credible science. The Chamber pointed out that almost thirty courts around the country have excluded expert testimony based on this faulty science because they have found it to be unscientific and inconsistent with causation requirements.