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:
Ameritas Urges Georgia Supreme Court To Void ‘Life Wager’ Policy
September 15, 2025 | JacobiJournal.com — Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. is pressing the Supreme Court of Georgia to rule that a controversial life insurance arrangement cannot be enforced, arguing the deal amounts to an illegal wager on human life. At the center of the dispute is an investor-backed life insurance policy that was later purchased by a trust, raising the question of whether such agreements violate Georgia’s long-standing prohibition on wagering contracts. Ameritas contends that allowing the trust to collect benefits would effectively transform life insurance into a speculative investment vehicle, undermining its intended role of providing financial security to families and policyholders. The case highlights broader concerns within the insurance industry about so-called “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI) policies, which regulators and courts nationwide have increasingly scrutinized for potential fraud and abuse. Insurer Challenges Investor-Backed Policy Ameritas contends that a trust holding the policy—purchased years after it was originally issued—has no legitimate right to collect death benefits. According to the insurer, such investor-driven transactions undermine the very purpose of life insurance, which is to provide financial security for families, not serve as a speculative investment vehicle. The company argues that allowing investors to profit from policies they never had an insurable interest in could open the door to widespread abuse of the insurance system. Regulators and industry groups have long warned that such practices distort the risk pool, drive up costs for legitimate policyholders, and erode public confidence in life insurance as a safety net. Ameritas maintains that if courts uphold these investor-backed arrangements, insurers may be forced to reevaluate underwriting practices and tighten compliance oversight to prevent similar disputes in the future. Stakes High for Life Settlement Industry The case is being closely watched in Georgia and beyond, as it could influence how courts treat investor-backed life settlement agreements. Industry experts warn that a ruling in favor of Ameritas could set a precedent that reshapes the market for secondary life insurance transactions. Legal observers note that these types of arrangements fall into the broader category of “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI), where third-party investors acquire policies with no insurable interest in the original policyholder. Courts across the country have wrestled with whether such contracts violate public policy by creating financial incentives tied to another person’s death. Ameritas argues that Georgia law, like many states, was designed to prevent such speculative practices, and the outcome of this case could set a pivotal precedent for how investor-backed life insurance is treated going forward. Broader National Trend Similar disputes have surfaced across the U.S., with insurers frequently challenging so-called “stranger-originated life insurance” (STOLI) policies. Courts have increasingly scrutinized these arrangements, questioning whether they violate long-standing public policy against wagering on human lives. In several states, high-profile rulings have either voided STOLI contracts outright or limited investors’ ability to enforce them, signaling a judicial shift toward stricter oversight. Regulators have also expressed concern that such practices could distort the life insurance market, inflating costs for policyholders who purchase coverage for legitimate family protection. Industry experts warn that unless clearer legal boundaries are established, these disputes will continue to surface, creating uncertainty for insurers, investors, and beneficiaries alike. What Comes Next in Georgia The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the trust may claim the policy’s benefits, or if the contract will be declared void as against public policy. A ruling is expected later this year and could have ripple effects for insurers, investors, and estate planners across the Southeast. Legal analysts note that the case could set a binding precedent in Georgia, influencing how courts in neighboring states approach similar investor-backed policies. A decision striking down the arrangement could embolden insurers to more aggressively challenge questionable policies, while a ruling in favor of the trust might encourage continued use of such structures in estate planning and investment circles. Either outcome is expected to draw close attention from financial advisors, policyholders, and lawmakers monitoring the balance between consumer protection and investment innovation in the life insurance market. For more context on life settlement regulation, visit National Association of Insurance Commissioners. FAQs: Ameritas Life Insurance Policy Georgia Ruling What is the core issue in the Ameritas case? Ameritas argues that the investor-backed life insurance policy is an illegal “wager on life” and should not be enforced. What is a STOLI policy? A STOLI, or stranger-originated life insurance policy, involves investors purchasing life insurance on strangers, often raising public policy concerns. Why does this case matter beyond Georgia? The ruling could influence national treatment of investor-backed life settlements, shaping future litigation and regulatory approaches. When is a decision expected? The Georgia Supreme Court is reviewing arguments now, with a ruling anticipated before the end of 2025. Subscribe to JacobiJournal.com for timely updates on insurance litigation and financial fraud cases. 🔎 Read More from JacobiJournal.com: