Adams v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit considered asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims governed by Idaho law. In light of intervening Idaho Supreme Court decisions adopting an objectively ascertainable injury standard for accrual of the statute of limitations, the court vacated its prior ruling on limitations, reversed the summary judgments for the defendants, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also directed reconsideration of the statute-of-limitations issue based on potentially disputed facts concerning when the plaintiffs’ asbestosis became objectively ascertainable.

Holdings

1. An intervening decision of the highest state court interpreting controlling state law inconsistently with the appellate court's prior ruling is grounds for reconsidering that prior ruling notwithstanding the law-of-the-case doctrine.
2. Under Idaho's objectively ascertainable injury rule, the limitations period for the asbestos-related personal-injury claims did not necessarily commence on the date of the tortfeasor's conduct or the date of last exposure; the claims had to be evaluated based on when the injury became objectively ascertainable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an intervening interpretation of Idaho Code section 5-219(4) by the Idaho Supreme Court required reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit's prior statute-of-limitations ruling.
2. Whether the personal-injury claims could be resolved on summary judgment without factual development concerning when the decedents' asbestosis became objectively ascertainable.
3. Whether the district court's summary judgment orders should be reversed and remanded for determination of the limitations issue under Idaho's objectively ascertainable injury rule.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded