William Bedford v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 20-60214 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 17, 2020 No. 20-60214 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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suit against Appellee American * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 No. 20-60214 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). 2 Case: 20-60214 Document: 00515676835 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2020 No. 20-60214 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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
