Opinion
1961592.
January 16, 1998.
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CV-95-2218); Chris N. Galanos, Judge.
Cecil Gardner of Gardner, Middlebrooks, Fleming Hamilton, Mobile; and Janice Pennington and Misty A. Farris of Baron Budd, P.C., Dallas, TX, for appellant.
Vincent A. Noletto, Jr., of Brown, Hudgens, P.C., Mobile; and J. Ford Little of Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen Carpenter, P.L.L.C., Knoxville, TN, for appellee W.R. Grace Co.-Conn.
F. Grey Redditt, Jr., of Adams Reese, L.L.P., Mobile, for appellee Rapid American.
Edward B. McDonough, Jr., and Kevin D. Graham of Edward B. McDonough, Jr., P.C., Mobile, for appellees Garlock, Inc., and Anchor Packing Company.
Judson W. Wells and Susan Gunnells Smith of Janecky, Newell, Potts, Wells Wilson, P.C., Mobile, for appellee Georgia-Pacific Corporation.
James W. Tarlton III of Hamilton, Butler, Riddick, Tarlton Sullivan, P.C., Mobile, for appellee Flinkote Company.
James A. Philips, Mobile, for appellee Synkoloid Company.
J. Glynn Tubb of Eyster, Key, Tubb, Weaver Roth, Decatur, for appellee M.H. Detrick Company.
R. Bruce Barze, Jr., of Balch Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellee North American Refractories Company.
David M. Smith and Carole A. Golinski of Maynard, Cooper Gale, P.C., Birmingham, for amicus curiae Business Council of Alabama.
Vernon Maximillian Chestang, Jr., sued, among others, W.R. Grace Co.-Conn.; Anchor Packing Company; Garlock, Inc.; Flinkote Company; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Rapid American Corporation; Georgia Pacific Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; M.H. Detrick Company; Proko Industries, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; Synkoloid Company; and North American Refractories Company, for damages, based on asbestos-related personal injury. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants based on its conclusion that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that 42 U.S.C. § 9658, the federal statute of limitations contained in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), was not applicable because, it held, § 9658 did not preempt the state statute of limitations in this case.
This case is factually similar to Becton v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 706 So.2d 1134 (Ala. 1997), decided recently, and the arguments presented in this case are basically the same as those presented in that case. Thus, based on the authority of Becton v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., we affirm the summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, KENNEDY, and SEE, JJ., concur.