The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a lower court's decision to send a lawsuit back to state court involving General Electric (GE) and asbestos exposure. The case, Linda Horton v. GE, No. 25-5958, centers around the claims of Linda Horton, who is suing GE for the alleged role its products played in her late husband's diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma. This ruling is significant as it addresses the complexities of jurisdiction in cases involving federal contractor defenses.
Linda Horton, acting both individually and as the executrix of her late husband Barney Horton, Jr.'s estate, filed the lawsuit in Kentucky state court. The dispute arose after Mr. Horton was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The lawsuit claims that GE and other defendants are liable for damages due to exposure to asbestos-containing products. This case is particularly notable as it involves claims that span both military service and civilian employment.
The background of the case reveals that Barney Horton worked as a millwright at GE's Appliance Park in Louisville, Kentucky, for over a decade. His exposure to asbestos occurred through his work with GE products and from asbestos dust on his father's clothing, who also worked at GE. After his diagnosis in May 2024, the Hortons filed a civil lawsuit against GE and other defendants in November 2024, asserting multiple claims related to strict liability and negligence.
During the legal proceedings, GE sought to remove the case to federal court, citing a federal-officer defense based on Mr. Horton’s military service. GE argued that the asbestos exposure could be linked to turbines it supplied for the USS Cascade, the ship on which Mr. Horton served in the Navy from 1968 to 1972. However, after GE's removal of the case, Linda Horton submitted an amended complaint explicitly disclaiming any claims arising from her husband's military service.
The district court granted Horton’s motion to remand the case back to state court, stating that GE could not assert a valid federal defense. GE subsequently appealed this decision. The Sixth Circuit, led by Judge Danny J. Boggs, along with Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar, reviewed the arguments presented.
The court ruled that GE's attempt to rely on the federal-officer removal statute was invalid. The judges noted that once the amended complaint was filed, which disclaimed any military-related claims, GE no longer had a colorable federal defense. The court stated, "GE cannot be subjected to 'tort liability associated with its performance of a government procurement contract'... it has no colorable federal defense and the district court appropriately remanded the case to state court."
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the limits of federal jurisdiction in cases involving federal contractors. The court emphasized that the federal-officer-removal statute requires a clear connection between the claims and federal conduct. In this case, since the amended complaint excluded any claims related to Mr. Horton’s military service, the court found that GE could not assert its federal contractor defense.
The decision has broader implications for future cases involving asbestos exposure and federal contractors. It reinforces the principle that plaintiffs can effectively limit the scope of their claims to avoid federal jurisdiction, particularly in cases where they can demonstrate that their injuries are not linked to federal actions. This ruling may encourage other plaintiffs in similar situations to pursue their claims in state courts, where they may find more favorable conditions for litigation.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether GE will seek to appeal this decision further. However, the current ruling stands as a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases involving federal contractor defenses and jurisdictional issues. The legal landscape surrounding asbestos exposure claims continues to evolve, particularly as more plaintiffs seek accountability from manufacturers like GE.