VIRGINIA: 

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 16th day of 

April, 2015. 

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., et al., Appellants, 

 against Record No. 140748 

 Circuit Court No. CL13-3827 

Garland Cantrell, Appellee. 

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 

 n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 140749 

 Circuit Court No. CL13-3827 

Garland Cantrell, Appellee. 

 Upon appeals from a 

judgment rendered by the Circuit 

Court of the City of Norfolk. 

 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is reversible error in 

the judgment of the circuit court. 

Garland Cantrell worked as a boiler tender from 1987 through 

2005. In 2013, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He thereafter 

filed an amended complaint against 17 defendants (the "Premises 

Defendants") who owned premises where he had worked on boilers, 

alleging that their negligence and gross negligence proximately 

caused his illness. Cantrell alleged that one of these Premises 

Defendants, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., n/k/a 
2

Huntington Ingalls Inc. ("Huntington"), was also negligent and 

negligent per se by failing to comply with federal worker safety 

provisions applicable while his parents were its employees, thereby 

causing him to be exposed to asbestos fibers they carried home on 

their clothes and persons. 

The various defendants filed demurrers to the amended 

complaint.*

 Cantrell filed memoranda opposing the demurrers and the 

defendants filed replies. After a hearing, the circuit court 

informed the parties that it would take the demurrers under 

advisement. 

Several weeks later, the court notified the parties that its 

decision would be forthcoming. The following day, Cantrell filed a 

complaint in the Circuit Court of the City of Newport News against 

all but four of the defendants remaining in the suit pending in 

Norfolk, alleging substantially similar claims. The day after 

filing his complaint in Newport News, Cantrell moved to nonsuit the 

amended complaint pending in Norfolk under Code § 8.01-380. The 

remaining defendants in the Norfolk proceeding opposed the motion, 

arguing that the claims pending there had been "submitted to the 

court for decision" within the meaning of Code § 8.01-380(A). 

After additional briefing and a hearing, the circuit court 

entered an order granting Cantrell’s motion for nonsuit. Twelve of 

the Premises Defendants and Huntington appeal. 

 *

 Two of the Premises Defendants were separately dismissed or 

nonsuited. These defendants did not file demurrers and are not 

within the scope of this appeal. 
3

Code § 8.01-380(A) provides in relevant part that "[a] party 

shall not be allowed to suffer a nonsuit as to any cause of action 

or claim, or any other party to the proceeding, unless he does so 

. . . before the action has been submitted to the court for 

decision." The Court has previously determined that an action is 

"submitted to the court for decision" within the meaning of the 

statute when the case "is in the hands of the trial judge for final 

disposition, either on a dispositive motion or upon the merits." 

Bio-Medical Applications of Va., Inc. v. Coston, 272 Va. 489, 493, 

634 S.E.2d 349, 351 (2006). 

The Court has also previously determined that a demurrer is a 

dispositive motion. In Wells v. Lorcom House Condominiums’ Council 

of Co-Owners, 237 Va. 247, 252, 377 S.E.2d 381, 384 (1989), the 

defendants filed a demurrer, a plea in bar, and a motion to dismiss 

prior to the plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit. Each of these three 

pleadings was deemed dispositive for the purpose of precluding a 

nonsuit under Code § 8.01-380(A). Id. 

Accordingly, the circuit court erred in granting Cantrell’s 

motion for nonsuit after the parties had completed their briefing 

and argument on the demurrers. Neither the parties nor the court 

anticipated any further proceedings on the demurrers, which 

therefore were committed to the court for its ruling. Thus, the 

case was "in the hands of the trial judge for final disposition" at 

the time of Cantrell’s motion. Bio-Medical Applications, 272 Va. 

at 493, 634 S.E.2d at 351. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and 

the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

order. 
4

Justices Goodwyn and McClanahan took no part in the 

consideration of this case. 

 This order shall be certified to the said circuit court and 

shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 

 Patricia L. Harrington, Clerk