Ford Asbestos Lawsuit Dismissed by Ohio Appeals Court
October 24, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — An asbestos lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. has been dismissed by an Ohio appellate court, which found the product liability claims were improperly filed in state court. The ruling determined that the alleged exposure lacked sufficient connection to Ford’s Ohio operations, marking a significant jurisdictional win for the automaker. Court Reaffirms Jurisdictional Limits in Asbestos Litigation The panel held that the plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient ties between the alleged asbestos exposure and Ford’s Ohio operations, leading to the dismissal of the asbestos lawsuit. The court emphasized that jurisdictional rules under state and federal law prevent forum-shopping in asbestos lawsuits, especially when plaintiffs or exposure incidents occurred outside Ohio. Legal experts note that this Ford asbestos lawsuit decision reinforces the tightening standards for product liability jurisdiction in complex toxic tort cases. Ford’s Legal Victory Reflects Tightening Product Liability Landscape Ford’s defense argued that allowing the case to proceed in Ohio would violate due process standards. The appellate court agreed, reinforcing strict venue and jurisdiction criteria that often protect manufacturers from out-of-state claims. The ruling is consistent with a growing judicial trend emphasizing nexus and forum appropriateness in complex tort actions. For insurers and corporate counsel, this case serves as a reminder that forum selection challenges remain a potent defense strategy in high-liability product cases. Implications for Insurers and Product Liability Defendants The decision highlights how jurisdictional control can affect insurance exposure and settlement dynamics in asbestos-related litigation. Insurers underwriting historical exposure policies may now see reduced defense obligations when jurisdiction is successfully contested. Industry observers suggest this may influence future coverage strategies, particularly in multi-state liability scenarios. For additional legal analysis, visit Bloomberg Law’s coverage of product liability jurisdictional trends. FAQs: Ford Asbestos Lawsuit Dismissal (2025) What was the basis for the Ford asbestos lawsuit dismissal? The Ohio appeals court found the case lacked sufficient jurisdictional ties to Ohio, meaning the lawsuit should not have been filed in that venue. How does this ruling affect future asbestos litigation? It reinforces stricter venue requirements, discouraging plaintiffs from filing in states where the alleged exposure did not occur. Does the decision impact insurance carriers? Yes. Insurers may face reduced defense costs when jurisdictional challenges succeed, limiting their exposure in unrelated forums. What precedent does this set for corporate defendants? It strengthens the argument for corporations to challenge out-of-state filings, particularly in legacy asbestos and toxic tort cases. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for weekly updates on insurance litigation, appellate rulings, and liability enforcement. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com:
Asbestos Clinic Closure Ordered to Pay BNSF Jury Award
May 16, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com – The asbestos clinic closure in Libby, Montana, has sparked renewed concern over public health and corporate accountability. Authorities shut down the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD) this week to enforce a $3.1 million debt owed to BNSF Railway, following a controversial fraud judgment. The abrupt asbestos clinic closure leaves thousands of residents—many exposed for decades to toxic vermiculite dust—without critical respiratory care and disease monitoring. As the only local facility specializing in asbestos-related illnesses, CARD’s shutdown raises questions about healthcare access and the lasting consequences of environmental disasters. Asbestos Clinic Closure Sparks Public Health Concerns On Wednesday, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office seized and shut down the Center for Asbestos Related Disease (CARD). Located in a town of just 3,000 people, the clinic has operated for over two decades near a now-defunct vermiculite mine that emitted toxic asbestos dust. Thousands of residents have suffered health consequences, and CARD had become a cornerstone of their medical care. Despite its long-standing role in treating asbestos-related illnesses, the clinic now faces closure because of a $6 million fraud judgment awarded in 2023 to BNSF Railway. After legal fees and interest, BNSF claims it is owed $3.1 million. Allegations of Fraud and Fallout from Court Case The legal dispute began when BNSF, a Texas-based railway, sued CARD under the False Claims Act. The suit alleged that the clinic fraudulently diagnosed patients with asbestos-related illnesses to qualify them for federal Medicare benefits. According to court findings, 337 out of over 2,000 diagnoses were ruled invalid. BNSF transported contaminated material through Libby for decades, and it continues to face lawsuits from local victims of asbestos exposure. Nonetheless, the company prevailed in this case by claiming that CARD manipulated patient data, thereby defrauding the government. As a whistleblower under federal law, BNSF was entitled to a portion of the government’s recovery from the judgment. BNSF spokesperson Kendall Kirkham Sloan defended the closure, stating: “The judge determined the amount of damages to be repaid, and the process for recovery is set by law.” Bankruptcy Complicates the Enforcement However, the situation is far from resolved. After the judgment, CARD filed for bankruptcy and reached a court-approved settlement with the federal government, which included BNSF. According to James “Andy” Patten, the clinic’s bankruptcy attorney, the railway’s recent actions violated that agreement. “This seizure undermines a settlement that was approved by a federal court,” Patten argued. When asked about the bankruptcy terms, Sloan declined to comment. Community Faces Growing Health Risks Tracy McNew, Executive Director of CARD, expressed deep concern for the community. “CARD remains committed to its patients and the Libby community and will fight to reopen as soon as possible,” she stated. Until the closure, CARD served as the only local medical facility offering asbestos-related health screenings, monitoring, and treatment. Many in Libby fear that without this specialized care, health conditions will go undiagnosed and untreated—especially among the town’s aging population, which faces elevated risks from long-term asbestos exposure. The asbestos clinic closure not only disrupts continuity of care but also eliminates access to early detection services crucial for those exposed decades ago. Experts warn that mesothelioma, asbestosis, and other related conditions can develop silently for years, making regular checkups essential for early intervention. Public health advocates and residents alike argue that the sudden loss of CARD’s services creates a healthcare vacuum that federal or state resources have yet to fill. In the wake of the asbestos clinic closure, several community groups are calling on lawmakers to intervene and provide emergency medical access for affected residents. The situation highlights broader concerns over how legal judgments can impact essential healthcare infrastructure in underserved, contaminated communities. Learn how the BNSF case leveraged federal law—explore the U.S. Department of Justice’s official overview of the False Claims Act at justice.gov. FAQs: About the Asbestos Clinic Closure and Its Impact How is the asbestos clinic closure affecting long-term patient care in Libby? The asbestos clinic closure has disrupted access to specialized screenings and treatment, putting long-term patients at risk of undiagnosed or worsening conditions. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for trusted updates on asbestos litigation, federal fraud rulings, and public health enforcement actions, such as the CARD clinic closure, which impacts vulnerable communities. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com: