No, the family's evidence was not good enough. Virginia law changed right before the trial, making it much harder to prove these cases. Before, you could win by showing a product was a 'substantial contributing factor.' The new rule says you must prove the product was 'sufficient' to cause the cancer all by itself. The family's main expert only said the brakes were a 'substantial' factor. When the family tried to submit a new expert opinion to meet the new rule, the judge threw it out because it was too late. The judge also said that even if the new opinion was allowed, it still wasn't good enough because the expert never explained exactly *how much* asbestos exposure is needed to cause cancer, so he couldn't prove the brakes alone were sufficient.

Yes, the court agrees with Honeywell and ends the case against them because the person suing did not give expert evidence that meets the new rule. Their experts didn't say how much asbestos is enough to cause this lung cancer or show that the amount from the Bendix brakes was that much. One expert's report saying it was enough on its own was turned in too late and can't be used. What the experts said before about the Bendix asbestos being an important factor doesn't match the new rule. Another expert talking about a made-up situation with only one exposure also doesn't count.

No. Under the causation standard established in Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, a plaintiff fails to create a genuine issue of material fact and is not entitled to proceed to trial. The Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Boomer abrogated the 'substantial contributing factor' test for causation in multiple-exposure asbestos cases. It established a stricter 'sufficiency' standard, requiring a plaintiff to prove that exposure to a specific defendant's product was 'more likely than not sufficient to have triggered the harm.' This requires expert testimony to establish two points: 1) what level of exposure is sufficient to cause mesothelioma, and 2) whether the levels of exposure from the defendant's product were sufficient. The plaintiff's original expert testimony only opined that the decedent's Bendix brake exposure was a 'substantial contributing factor' to his cumulative exposure, which is no longer the legal standard. Furthermore, the court struck a late-filed expert declaration attempting to meet the Boomer standard as untimely and prejudicial. Even if it were considered, that declaration was substantively deficient because it failed to define a scientific benchmark for a sufficient level of exposure and instead offered only a conclusory opinion that the decedent's exposure was sufficient, improperly conflating 'risk' with 'cause'.

Yes, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted because the plaintiff has failed to provide expert testimony that satisfies the standard under Boomer. The plaintiff's experts did not establish what level of exposure to asbestos is sufficient to cause mesothelioma, nor did they demonstrate that the decedent's exposure to Bendix brakes met this level. Dr. Markowitz's untimely February 2013 declaration opining that the decedent's exposure was independently sufficient is excluded under Rule 37. His prior opinions that the Bendix exposure was a 'substantial contributing factor' do not meet the Boomer sufficiency standard. Dr. Abraham's testimony about a hypothetical single exposure also fails to create a genuine factual dispute on causation.

Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot