# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60214 Summary Calendar

**William Bedford, Individually, and as Co**

**- Executor of**  **the Estate of Beverly Bedford, deceased, and Kim Waddle as Co** 

**- Executor of the Estate of Beverly**  **Bedford, deceased,**
Plaintiff s

— Appellant s **,**

versus
**American Honda Motor Company, Incorporated,**
Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:18

- CV

- 175

Before **Clement, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt ,**  Circuit Judges

. **Stephen A. Higginson,** Circuit Judge **:** * Appellants William Bedford and Kim Waddle , as co

- executors of the estate of Beverly Bedford, brought a tort suit against Appellee American

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2020No. 20

- 60214

2 Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Honda”) alleging that Honda products exposed Ms. Bedford to asbestos and caused her death from mesothelioma. Honda filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Appellants then filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the district court to revisit its summary judgment decision. Two days later, while that motion was still pending, Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal of the district court’s summary judgment order

. The distr ict court subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration.

Here , Appellants argue that the district court erred by failing to apply

t he “ Lohrmann Test,” 1 which they assert is the proper standard under Mississippi law for evaluating summary judgment moti ons in asbestos

related products liability cases. Had the district court done so, they argue, it

m ight have denied Appellee’s motion.

The main problem with this argument is that it comes too late. As Appellee notes, Appellants first raised their argument concerning the Lohrmann Test in their motion for reconsideration. They make no mention of the Lohrmann Test in their response to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment , which is the subject of their appeal

. “This court will typically not consider an issue or a new argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration in the district court .” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc. , 761 F.3d 409, 425 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. De La Luz Garcia , 501 F.3d 436, 442 (5th

1 First stated in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. , 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986), the Lohrmann Test looks to the “frequency, regularity, and proximity” of as bestos exposure in order to determine if a plaintiff has established a prima facie causal connection in asbestos

- related tort litigation

. See Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. , 130 So.3d 66, 70 (Miss. 2013). Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2020No. 20

- 60214

3 Cir. 2007)) ; see also LaClerc v. Webb , 419 F.3d 405, 412 n.13 (5th Cir. 2005) (“A motion for reconsideration may not be used to rehash rejected arguments or introduce new arguments.” (citing Westbr ook v. C.I.R. , 68 F.3d 868, 879 (5th Cir. 1995)) )

. Such arguments are deemed to have been waived. U.S. Bank , 761 F.3d at 425; see also Mungo v. Taylor , 3 5 5 F.3d 969, 978 (7th Cir. 2004) (“ Arguments raised for the first time in connection with a motion for reconsideration, however, are generally deemed to be waived .”). We therefore decline to consider Appellants’ argument concerning the Lohrmann Test. As they present no other arguments supporting revers al , their appeal fails

**. AFFIRMED.**  Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2020