Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Chief Justice Cherry.
In this appeal from orders granting summary judgment in favor of respondents, the Court examined the appropriate causation test to use in connection with claims for mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Prior to Holcomb, Nevada had not articulated a causation standard in asbestos cases for determining whether a plaintiff’s mesothelioma is sufficiently caused by exposure to a defendant’s products. After considering causation tests from California (“exposure-to-risk” test), Texas (“defendant-specific-dosage-plus-substantial factor” test) and the Fourth Circuit (“frequency, regularity, proximity” test), the Court adopted the test applied by a majority of federal circuits and state courts set forth in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986), as the test was explained in Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216, 225 (Pa. 2007), a mesothelioma case. Under the Lohrmann test, a plaintiff is required to prove exposure to a defendants’ product “on a regular basis over some extended period of time” and “in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked,” such that it is probable or reasonable to infer, that the exposure caused the mesothelioma. The Court noted that although plaintiffs generally bear the burden in establishing causation, plaintiffs in asbestos litigation are often unable to provide precisely how much exposure they received from any particular defendant’s products due to a lengthy latency period between exposure and the manifestation of the injury, poor record keeping and the expense of reconstructing such data. The Court adopted the Lohrmann test because it balances the rights and interests of manufacturers with those of plaintiffs. In applying the Lohrmann test to the facts of Holcomb, the Court reversed the order granting summary judgment in favor of the respondent asbestos manufacturers, holding that appellants raised sufficient evidence of probable exposure to products manufactured by respondents Georgia Pacific, Kaiser Gypsum, and Kelly-Moore to defeat summary judgment. With respect to the asbestos supplier, respondent Union Carbide, the Court affirmed the order granting summary judgment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. (Kristen T. Gallagher, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
