United States Court of Appeals

for 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, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

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 Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 12/17/2020
No. 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 

Federal 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 district court subsequently denied the motion 

for reconsideration.

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

the “Lohrmann Test,”1 which they assert is the proper standard under 

Mississippi law for evaluating summary judgment motions in asbestosrelated products liability cases. Had the district court done so, they argue, it 

might 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 asbestos 

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: 12/17/2020
No. 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 Westbrook 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, 355 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 reversal, 

their appeal fails.

AFFIRMED.

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