Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02138/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

F 1 LED 

Uoited SlfUet Court of Appeals 

ienth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL 13 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

MANUEL LUCERO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION; 

EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; 

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC.; GAF 

CORPORATION; THE KEENE CORPORATION; 

PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION; NICOLET 

INDUSTRIES, INC.; RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, 

INC.; FIBREBOARD CORPORATION; 

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.; and 

ASBESTOS CLAIMS FACILITY DEFENDANTS, 

Defendants, 

and 

THE CELOTEX CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Nos. 89-2087 

) & 

) 89-2138 

) (D.C. No. 86-0785JB) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2138 Document: 010110038373 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

In this action for damages based on exposure to asbestos 

containing products, the Celotex Corporation (Celotex) has 

appealed from a judgment of the district court entered upon a jury 

verdict. Celotex argues that punitive damages cannot be awarded 

against it for the transgressions of its predecessor in interest, 

the Philip Carey Manufacturing Company (Philip Carey), which 

produced the materials to which plaintiff was exposed. The 

parties agree that New Mexico law governs the question of 

successor liability in this case. After considering the briefs 

and the relevant case law we join those courts which have found 

Celotex liable for punitive damages occasioned by the conduct of 

Philip Carey in light of statutory and/or common law provisions 

similar to New Mexico's. See Man v. Raymark Indus., 728 F. Supp. 

1461, 1468 (D. Haw. 1989); Krull v. Celotex Corp., 611 F. Supp. 

146, 148-49 (N.D. Ill. 1985); Wall v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas 

Corp., 602 F. Supp. 252, 255 (N.D. Tex. 1985); Hanlon v. 

Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 559 F. Supp. 376, 378 (N.D. Iowa 

1984); Celotex Corp. v. Pickett, 490 So.2d 35, 37 (Fla. 1986). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2138 Document: 010110038373 Date Filed: 07/13/1990 Page: 2