Court Rejects Georgia Power Bid to Split Asbestos Fault
The Court of Appeals of Georgia upheld a trial court ruling that an asbestos defendant cannot have a jury apportion fault among other potential tortfeasors.
Updated on Nov. 3, 2026 in Criminal Justice
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a trial court ruling against Georgia Power in an asbestos case, issuing its opinion on Nov. 3. The court rejected the defendant's effort to apply recent tort reform law retroactively to the underlying case.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that changes to Georgia's fault-apportionment rules do not automatically apply to cases already underway, which affects how pending asbestos litigation is tried. The decision shapes how plaintiffs and defendants in the state will argue fault allocation in similar claims.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's refusal to let the jury apportion fault to other potential tortfeasors in the asbestos case. The underlying claims remain pending, and it is not stated whether the matter will return to the trial court or be appealed further.
The players
Georgia Power
Georgia Power is the electric utility serving most of Georgia and a subsidiary of Southern Company, and it was the party whose request for apportionment was rejected.
Kevin Sinyard
Kevin Sinyard is the former pipefitter whose asbestos exposure over more than 25 years is at the center of the plaintiffs' claims.
The details
The trial court determined the asbestos defendant was not entitled to have jury apportion fault among other tortfeasors, and the appellate court held that retrospective application of OCGA § 51-12-15 to the underlying case does not comport with the Georgia Constitution. The plaintiffs allege Kevin Sinyard worked as a pipefitter for more than 25 years.
Timeline
Nov. 3, 2026: Court of Appeals of Georgia issues affirming opinion.
Legal Context
The appellate court's refusal to apply OCGA § 51-12-15 retroactively follows the constitutional limits on retrospective laws that Georgia courts apply to tort reform. The decision places this asbestos case within a broader pattern of litigation over which version of Georgia's fault rules governs claims filed before the changes took effect.
People with pending asbestos or similar injury claims in Georgia will have their fault allocation decided under the rules in effect when their case was filed, not under the newer statute. Defendants will not be able to rely on the apportionment changes for claims already in court.
The takeaway
Claims already in litigation are generally governed by the law at the time they were filed, so the timing of a case can shape its outcome. Anyone tracking Georgia tort reform should watch how courts handle other pending cases.
Further reading
For more on how state courts handle cases like this, see Criminal Justice coverage from Georgia.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Harrismartin.
