Court Returns Asbestos Case to Kentucky State Court

A federal appeals court has affirmed the remand of an asbestos litigation suit involving service in the U.S. Navy.

Updated on Oct. 19, 2026 in Military

Court Returns Asbestos Case to Kentucky State Court

Live Poll

Should companies be protected from state lawsuits if they claim federal contractor status for asbestos exposure?

A federal appeals court has affirmed the remand of an asbestos lawsuit filed by Linda Horton against General Electric to Kentucky state court. The decision follows a district court ruling from October 15, 2025, concerning claims related to the late Barney Horton, Jr.

Why it matters

The court determined that General Electric failed to demonstrate a valid federal-contractor defense after the plaintiff explicitly disclaimed any legal claims associated with the decedent’s U.S. Navy service.

The litigation involves claims regarding Barney Horton, Jr., who served in the U.S. Navy from 1968 to 1972. The case was moved to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1442 before the district court ordered it returned to state jurisdiction.

The players

Linda Horton

She is the plaintiff who filed the asbestos lawsuit against General Electric in Kentucky state court.

General Electric

This multinational conglomerate is the primary defendant in the asbestos litigation and attempted to move the case to federal court.

Barney Horton, Jr.

He was a military veteran who served in the U.S. Navy and whose service history became a central factor in the legal dispute.

The details

Linda Horton filed the asbestos lawsuit in Kentucky, eventually moving to disclaim federal claims via an affidavit and an amended complaint to ensure the matter remained in state court. General Electric remains the primary defendant in the ongoing litigation.

Barney Horton, Jr. served in the U.S. Navy from 1968 to 1972.
The district court granted the motion to remand on October 15, 2025.

Political Context

The litigation highlights the jurisdictional boundaries established by 28 U.S.C. §1442 regarding the removal of suits against federal officers and agencies. This ruling marks a judicial limitation on the application of the statute in cases where plaintiffs have waived federal-related claims.

This procedural ruling clarifies the jurisdictional path for plaintiffs who choose to waive federal-contractor claims in asbestos cases. It ensures that such lawsuits remain within the state court system, impacting how litigants and defendants navigate potential damage allocations at trial.

The takeaway

This case underscores the importance of specific legal disclaimers when plaintiffs seek to avoid federal jurisdiction in civil litigation. By waiving claims related to military service, the plaintiff successfully limited the defendant's ability to transfer the suit to a federal forum.