Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—ASBESTOS—W.D. La.: Nuclear weapons contractors win summary judgment in serviceman’s mesothelioma suit, (Oct 15, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The serviceman failed to establish that either contractor designed, manufactured, or supplied asbestos-containing materials to which he was exposed during military service.

In an action brought by a former Air Force nuclear weapons specialist diagnosed with mesothelioma, a federal district court in Louisiana granted summary judgment to two contractors involved in the United States’ nuclear weapons program. The court found insufficient evidence that the insulation used in tritium shipping containers contained asbestos or that either contractor supplied an asbestos-containing product to which the serviceman was exposed. Although the contractors also asserted derivative sovereign immunity, the court resolved the motions on the lack of exposure evidence without deciding immunity (Short v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 22-5559 (W.D. La. Sept. 30, 2026)).

Background. In May 1996, the serviceman enlisted in the Air Force as a nuclear weapons specialist. At Plattsburgh Air Force Base in New York, he unloaded and dismantled bombs and replaced tritium containers shipped in barrels containing insulation packaging. He recalled loose fibers becoming airborne during the work and believed the material was asbestos because he had been instructed to wear a respirator. In 1968, he transferred to Bossier Air Force Base in Louisiana, where he performed similar duties until his discharge in 1970. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2021, he brought suit against several entities including National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS), which allegedly designed the packaging with asbestos-containing insulation, and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EIDP), which manufactured, packaged, and shipped the tritium components. Both contractors sought summary judgment on grounds of exposure and immunity.

Legal standard. Under Louisiana law, a mesothelioma claimant must establish significant exposure to the product at issue and that the exposure was a substantial factor in causing the disease. Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1091 (La. 2009). Although direct or circumstantial evidence may establish exposure, the claimant must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis with a fair amount of certainty and identify exposure attributable to each defendant; the difficulty of proving causation in long-latency cases does not reduce that burden.

NTESS. The contractor argued that the serviceman lacked evidence that the insulation packaging actually contained asbestos. Its specifications called for ceramic or refractory fiber insulation with a phenolic binder, designed to withstand temperatures up to 2,000°F. Its expert concluded that the specified materials did not include asbestos, and its corporate representative testified that the reviewed documents did not identify asbestos in the products. The serviceman relied on his own testimony, instructions to wear a mask, and a medical expert’s opinion linking asbestos exposure to mesothelioma. NTESS argued that a lay witness without personal knowledge cannot opine or testify as to the content and composition of the insulation, while the worker argued that his daily duties, technical expertise, task instructions, and training materials afforded him the required personal knowledge. The court found that verbal instructions about wearing a mask for asbestos exposure amounted to inadmissible hearsay because the worker did not show that these statements could be presented in admissible form at trial. Miller v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 98 F.4th 211, 218 (5th Cir. 2024).

The serviceman’s belief that the insulation contained asbestos, based on his training and duties, amounted to speculation rather than competent evidence of its composition. His medical expert relied principally on the same testimony and could not establish that the exposure came from an NTESS-designed product. The court distinguished Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009), where the record included expert testimony about asbestos use in high-temperature insulation and samples confirming asbestos in the materials. Here, the serviceman produced no comparable expert evidence, samples, or documents and failed to rebut NTESS’s material specifications. Merely placing him at bases where the shipping containers were present did not establish exposure to asbestos from NTESS’s products, warranting judgment for the packager.

EIDP. The contractor argued that the serviceman could not establish that it designed, manufactured, or shipped asbestos-containing tritium packaging. The serviceman contended that EIDP must have designed or packed the containers because it operated the Savannah River Plant, produced tritium for the military, and handled shipping-related work. The court found that the evidence established EIDP’s role in producing tritium and operating the facility, but not its responsibility for the shipping containers. An EIDP report identified ACF Industries as the supplier of the reservoir shipping containers, while other documents concerning container modifications did not establish EIDP as their designer or manufacturer. Moreover, a report on shipping packages developed at Savannah River indicated that non-asbestos insulation was used, and the serviceman produced no evidence to the contrary. His inconsistent descriptions of EIDP’s role and broad references to hundreds of pages of exhibits did not establish a genuine factual dispute. Because he failed to show that an EIDP product contained asbestos, the court granted summary judgment without reaching whether any exposure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.

Government-contractor immunity. Both contractors invoked Yearsley derivative sovereign immunity. The court observed that Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), appeared more appropriate because the contractors had entered procurement contracts with the Atomic Energy Commission. However, neither contractor had moved for immunity under Boyle, and the court’s decision rested on the lack of exposure evidence. It therefore declined to decide the immunity issue and dismissed all claims against NTESS and EIDP with prejudice on the merits.

The case is No. 22-5559.

Judge: Edwards, J.

Attorneys: Matthew C. Clark (Landry & Swarr LLC) for Reginald Short. Jason Kirk Elam (Gay Jones & Kuhn PLLC) for Honeywell International Inc.

Companies: Honeywell International Inc.

MainStory: TopStory DefensesLiabilityNews ExpertEvidenceNews AsbestosNews LouisianaNews