I just got my hands on an opinion the Iowa Court of Appeals released today regarding the hot issue of premises owner liability in asbestos cases.  In it, the court affirmed judgment for two premises owners.

As is usual with these types of claims, the wife of the worker was never at the place of employment but was exposed to asbestos fibers her husband carried home on his clothing.  Also following the MO of these claims, she developed mesothelioma.

The appeals court opinion is skimpy - 5 pages - and short on analysis but the trial judge's opinion is apparently 128 pages, and the appeals court called it "well-reasoned" and "correct."  I hope to have a copy of the trial court opinion to accompany the recent ruling when my story appears in the Jan. 23 issue of Mealey's Asbestos Litigation Report.

In the meantime, if you have any thoughts about premises rulings in asbestos cases (I think their have been about 12 or 15 now) that you'd like to discuss, or turn into a commentary, please feel free to contact me.  So far, the split in the rulings seems to be based on a state's reliance on "foreseeability."  I'm not sure how Iowa falls on this issue, but I assume from the recent outcome that its analysis isn't as heavy on foreseeability as those states that have held that there is a duty.