## Facts

- Temple-Inland hired an independent contractor, Biskamp Electric, to install electrical outlets and computer jacks in a paper mill laboratory.
- Two Biskamp employees, Martin Reeves Carter, Sr. and Larry Wilson, drilled holes in laboratory countertops that contained asbestos, generating asbestos-laden dust.
- Carter worked on the project for four to six weeks; Wilson worked for about two weeks.
- Neither worker was warned about asbestos before drilling and neither used protective gear to avoid inhaling dust.
- Near the end of the project, a laboratory manager warned them about asbestos; they stopped work, and Temple-Inland tested and decontaminated the laboratory.
- About eighteen months later, a physician examined both men and concluded neither had an asbestos-related disease.
- Wilson had pleural thickening and pulmonary-function findings, but the physician did not attribute them to the Temple-Inland exposure and considered the exposure too recent to explain symptoms.
- Carter and Wilson sued for mental anguish based on fear of developing an asbestos-related disease in the future, and also alleged Temple-Inland failed to implement a federally required hazard communication program.

## Issues

1. Whether a person exposed to asbestos, but with no present asbestos-related disease, may recover mental-anguish damages for fear of developing such a disease in the future.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Temple-Inland.
- The court held that asbestos exposure, without a present asbestos-related disease, does not permit recovery of mental-anguish damages based on fear of future disease.
- The court reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for Temple-Inland on actual damages and, correspondingly, punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Texas law does not recognize a stand-alone claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; mental-anguish damages are recoverable only when tied to a legally cognizable injury or recognized category of cases.
- Exposure to a toxic substance and an increased statistical risk, without a present disease or actionable physical impairment, is not an “injury” sufficient to support mental-anguish damages for fear of future illness.
- Courts may consider administrability and liability-limiting concerns in rejecting fear-of-future-disease claims that could generate indeterminate and widespread litigation by exposed but asymptomatic plaintiffs.

## Conclusion

A plaintiff who proves asbestos exposure but no present asbestos-related disease cannot recover mental-anguish damages for fear of possibly developing an asbestos-related disease in the future, and summary judgment for the defendant is proper on such claims.


Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp. v. Carter, 993 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. 1999)