The Supreme Court Considers “Bare-Metal” Liability in Asbestos Litigation

Modern asbestos litigation is often characterized as a continuous search for a solvent defendant. The case of Air and Liquid Systems v. DeVries, which was argued before the Supreme Court in October, brings a critical question to the forefront: Can companies that manufactured products containing no asbestos be held liable for asbestos-related injuries? Liability, in this context, would be predicated on the argument that the manufacturers had reason to foresee that asbestos, a known hazardous mineral, would be used in conjunction with the non-asbestos products they produced.


The Legal Question at Hand

The core legal issue in Air and Liquid Systems v. DeVries is the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn when its product requires the addition of a component (like asbestos insulation) supplied by a third party to function effectively. The petitioners argue that imposing “bare-metal” liability—liability for a product that was sold without the hazardous material—is an unwarranted expansion of traditional products liability law. Conversely, respondents argue that when a manufacturer’s product is specifically designed to function with an essential component containing asbestos, and the manufacturer knows or should know of the danger, a duty to warn arises.


Commentary and Coverage

This highly anticipated case has generated substantial discussion across the legal community. For a deeper analysis of the underlying legal arguments, one source for discussion is a piece published by Reason that addresses the case.

Further reporting on the oral argument before the Supreme Court is available from multiple sources, including coverage from Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News and pre- and post-argument analysis provided by Ronald Mann for SCOTUSBlog. Additional legal commentary and resources include contributions from Robert H. Wright of the Washington Legal Foundation and a Federalist Society link roundup and video featuring Justin Torres of King and Spalding.

This case’s outcome is expected to significantly impact the landscape of asbestos litigation and the scope of products liability for manufacturers across various industries.