## Facts

- Jack Cline worked at Griffin Wheel Company in Bessemer, Alabama from 1968 to 1987 and alleged workplace exposure to benzene during that period.
- Cline stopped working in positions involving alleged benzene exposure in 1987 and later retired in 1995.
- Cline was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) on October 7, 1999, and alleged benzene exposure caused the disease.
- On April 6, 2001, Cline sued Ashland, Inc., Chevron Phillips Chemical L.P. (successor to Chevron Chemical Company, LLC), and ExxonMobil Corporation under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), alleging they manufactured and/or supplied the benzene used at Griffin Wheel.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were barred by the statute of limitations because accrual occurred at last exposure (1987), not at diagnosis (1999).

## Issues

1. For statute-of-limitations purposes in an AEMLD toxic-substance exposure case, does the cause of action accrue at the time of last exposure or at the time the disease becomes medically identifiable/diagnosed?

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants, after granting rehearing and withdrawing an earlier no-opinion affirmance.
- The affirmance (issued without a majority opinion) left in place the rule that accrual occurred at last exposure (1987), rendering the 2001 action untimely.
- A special concurrence reasoned that changing accrual rules for latent-disease cases was a legislative, not judicial, function.
- A dissent argued for accrual at “manifest, present injury,” meaning observable symptoms or medically identifiable disease.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alabama’s existing toxic-exposure accrual doctrine applied to AEMLD claims, the limitations period runs from the plaintiff’s last exposure to the alleged toxic substance, not from later diagnosis of a latent disease.
- Courts will apply controlling precedent interpreting accrual under Ala. Code § 6-2-30(a) unless altered by valid legislative action.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when undisputed dates establish the claim was filed outside the limitations period measured from accrual.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a limitations-based summary judgment, effectively applying an exposure-based accrual rule that treated Cline’s AEMLD claim as accruing in 1987 at last exposure, not in 1999 when AML was diagnosed, making the 2001 filing time-barred.


Cline v. Ashland, Inc., 970 So. 2d 755 (Ala. 2007)