Asbestos Claims Bar Raised by Texas Supreme Court

Asbestos litigation in Texas just became a lot harder. The Texas Supreme Court recently overturned a Corpus Christi mechanic’s $169,000 damage award because he failed to quantify how much asbestos had been inhaled on the job.

Arturo Flores, working as a mechanic for more than 30 years, was exposed to asbestos every time he ground brake pads (the pads contained anywhere from 7 to 28 percent asbestos). He developed asbestosis, an incurable and debilitating lung condition.

On appeal, Borg-Warner, who lost at trial, claimed that Mr. Flores could not quantify how much asbestos he had inhaled and how much was from their brakes. The court reasoned that Mr. Flores did not show how much asbestos could have been inhaled or whether the amounts were sufficient to cause asbestosis.

Since the testing required to prove this new, higher standard is expensive, victims will now have a much harder time winning in court.

Contact Us

If you have any questions, you can call us at (512) 246-9191.

Tags:

Some of our Awards

Super LawyersTop One PercentLawyers of DistinctionMillion Dollar Advocates ForumNational Trial Lawyers Top 100Avvo 10/10 ratingTop 100 Verdict

Address

8701 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 401, Austin, TX 78757
Get Directions

Hours

Office: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday

Appointments available: All days and hours.

Phones answered 24/7

Contact

5.0 / 5 over 38 reviews

See Reviews

Leave a Review

Connect

Navigation

While most of our clients hail from Austin, Round Rock, Cedar Park, Georgetown, and Pflugerville in Travis and Williamson Counties, we have also worked with clients in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Other clients have come from Lakeway, Jollyville, Anderson Mill, Kyle, and Leander. If your accident was in Texas, we can help you. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
Back To Top