Polinder v. Brand Insulations - Revision history

MesotheliomaSupport: Remove inline educational-disclaimer div; site-wide disclaimer should live at /wiki/Disclaimer (pending medical reviewer onboarding) per audit-2026-05-13-template-fixes-spec Fix 9, not inline on each article

2026-05-20T14:41:20Z

Remove inline educational-disclaimer div; site-wide disclaimer should live at /wiki/Disclaimer (pending medical reviewer onboarding) per audit-2026-05-13-template-fixes-spec Fix 9, not inline on each article

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 20 May 2026
Line 64:		Line 64:
	* '''Insulation was integral to refinery operation''' — the Brand-supplied Sinquefield Declaration established under the first law of thermodynamics that the Cherry Point refinery could not operate as intended without thermal insulation.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />		* '''Insulation was integral to refinery operation''' — the Brand-supplied Sinquefield Declaration established under the first law of thermodynamics that the Cherry Point refinery could not operate as intended without thermal insulation.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />
	* '''Disposition affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded''' — King County Superior Court will adjudicate the surviving seller and supplier theories on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />		* '''Disposition affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded''' — King County Superior Court will adjudicate the surviving seller and supplier theories on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />

	~~<div style="clear:both; background:#fff3cd; border:1px solid #ffc107; padding:12px; margin:1em 0; border-radius:6px;">~~
	'''Educational disclaimer:''' This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Washington mesothelioma claimants should consult a licensed asbestos plaintiff's attorney to assess the specific applicability of RCW 4.16.300–.310 and the ''Polinder'' ruling to their case.
	~~</div>~~

	== Key Facts ==		== Key Facts ==

MesotheliomaSupport: Reposition at-a-glance listicle above educational disclaimer (fills column beside floated infobox; closes dead-zone gap)

2026-05-20T14:03:02Z

Reposition at-a-glance listicle above educational disclaimer (fills column beside floated infobox; closes dead-zone gap)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, 20 May 2026
Line 52:		Line 52:

	''Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc.'', No. 102782-6 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2026) (en banc), is the first Washington Supreme Court decision to draw a capacity-based line through the state's construction statute of repose, RCW 4.16.300–.310, as it applies to asbestos-disease claims.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /> Authored by Justice Steven C. González, the majority opinion holds that claims arising from Brand Insulations' installation of asbestos-containing insulation at the ARCO Cherry Point petroleum refinery in 1971–72 are barred by the six-year construction repose, but claims arising from Brand's independent duties as a product seller and negligent supplier of asbestos-bearing insulation are not barred and may proceed on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_300" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_310" /> The ruling resolves a split between Division II's 2020 ''Maxwell'' decision and Division I's 2023 ''Welch'' decision and opens a Restatement-grounded seller-liability path for Washington mesothelioma claimants whose exposures predate the 1981 effective date of the Washington Product Liability Act.<ref name="maxwell_opinion" /><ref name="welch_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_22_920" />		''Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc.'', No. 102782-6 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2026) (en banc), is the first Washington Supreme Court decision to draw a capacity-based line through the state's construction statute of repose, RCW 4.16.300–.310, as it applies to asbestos-disease claims.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /> Authored by Justice Steven C. González, the majority opinion holds that claims arising from Brand Insulations' installation of asbestos-containing insulation at the ARCO Cherry Point petroleum refinery in 1971–72 are barred by the six-year construction repose, but claims arising from Brand's independent duties as a product seller and negligent supplier of asbestos-bearing insulation are not barred and may proceed on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_300" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_310" /> The ruling resolves a split between Division II's 2020 ''Maxwell'' decision and Division I's 2023 ''Welch'' decision and opens a Restatement-grounded seller-liability path for Washington mesothelioma claimants whose exposures predate the 1981 effective date of the Washington Product Liability Act.<ref name="maxwell_opinion" /><ref name="welch_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_22_920" />

	~~<div style="clear:both; background:#fff3cd; border:1px solid #ffc107; padding:12px; margin:1em 0; border-radius:6px;">~~
	'''Educational disclaimer:''' This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Washington mesothelioma claimants should consult a licensed asbestos plaintiff's attorney to assess the specific applicability of RCW 4.16.300–.310 and the ''Polinder'' ruling to their case.
	~~</div>~~

	'''''Polinder v. Brand Insulations'' at a glance:'''		'''''Polinder v. Brand Insulations'' at a glance:'''
Line 68:		Line 64:
	* '''Insulation was integral to refinery operation''' — the Brand-supplied Sinquefield Declaration established under the first law of thermodynamics that the Cherry Point refinery could not operate as intended without thermal insulation.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />		* '''Insulation was integral to refinery operation''' — the Brand-supplied Sinquefield Declaration established under the first law of thermodynamics that the Cherry Point refinery could not operate as intended without thermal insulation.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />
	* '''Disposition affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded''' — King County Superior Court will adjudicate the surviving seller and supplier theories on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />		* '''Disposition affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded''' — King County Superior Court will adjudicate the surviving seller and supplier theories on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" />

			<div style="clear:both; background:#fff3cd; border:1px solid #ffc107; padding:12px; margin:1em 0; border-radius:6px;">
			'''Educational disclaimer:''' This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Washington mesothelioma claimants should consult a licensed asbestos plaintiff's attorney to assess the specific applicability of RCW 4.16.300–.310 and the ''Polinder'' ruling to their case.
			</div>

	== Key Facts ==		== Key Facts ==

MesotheliomaSupport: Fix disclaimer div overflow: add clear:both so box clears infobox float

2026-05-20T13:46:23Z

Fix disclaimer div overflow: add clear:both so box clears infobox float

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 20 May 2026
Line 53:		Line 53:
	''Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc.'', No. 102782-6 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2026) (en banc), is the first Washington Supreme Court decision to draw a capacity-based line through the state's construction statute of repose, RCW 4.16.300–.310, as it applies to asbestos-disease claims.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /> Authored by Justice Steven C. González, the majority opinion holds that claims arising from Brand Insulations' installation of asbestos-containing insulation at the ARCO Cherry Point petroleum refinery in 1971–72 are barred by the six-year construction repose, but claims arising from Brand's independent duties as a product seller and negligent supplier of asbestos-bearing insulation are not barred and may proceed on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_300" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_310" /> The ruling resolves a split between Division II's 2020 ''Maxwell'' decision and Division I's 2023 ''Welch'' decision and opens a Restatement-grounded seller-liability path for Washington mesothelioma claimants whose exposures predate the 1981 effective date of the Washington Product Liability Act.<ref name="maxwell_opinion" /><ref name="welch_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_22_920" />		''Polinder v. Brand Insulations, Inc.'', No. 102782-6 (Wash. Apr. 30, 2026) (en banc), is the first Washington Supreme Court decision to draw a capacity-based line through the state's construction statute of repose, RCW 4.16.300–.310, as it applies to asbestos-disease claims.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /> Authored by Justice Steven C. González, the majority opinion holds that claims arising from Brand Insulations' installation of asbestos-containing insulation at the ARCO Cherry Point petroleum refinery in 1971–72 are barred by the six-year construction repose, but claims arising from Brand's independent duties as a product seller and negligent supplier of asbestos-bearing insulation are not barred and may proceed on remand.<ref name="polinder_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_300" /><ref name="rcw_4_16_310" /> The ruling resolves a split between Division II's 2020 ''Maxwell'' decision and Division I's 2023 ''Welch'' decision and opens a Restatement-grounded seller-liability path for Washington mesothelioma claimants whose exposures predate the 1981 effective date of the Washington Product Liability Act.<ref name="maxwell_opinion" /><ref name="welch_opinion" /><ref name="rcw_4_22_920" />

	<div style="background:#fff3cd; border:1px solid #ffc107; padding:12px; margin:1em 0; border-radius:6px;">		<div style="clear:both; background:#fff3cd; border:1px solid #ffc107; padding:12px; margin:1em 0; border-radius:6px;">
	'''Educational disclaimer:''' This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Washington mesothelioma claimants should consult a licensed asbestos plaintiff's attorney to assess the specific applicability of RCW 4.16.300–.310 and the ''Polinder'' ruling to their case.		'''Educational disclaimer:''' This page is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. Washington mesothelioma claimants should consult a licensed asbestos plaintiff's attorney to assess the specific applicability of RCW 4.16.300–.310 and the ''Polinder'' ruling to their case.
	</div>		</div>

MesotheliomaSupport: Create wiki reference page: WA Supreme Court 2026-04-30 en banc ruling on RCW 4.16.300 statute of repose for asbestos construction-improvement vs. seller/supplier claims. Research dossier 2026-05-19; CLEO PASS #7768; HAND triage #7736.

2026-05-19T19:33:01Z

Create wiki reference page: WA Supreme Court 2026-04-30 en banc ruling on RCW 4.16.300 statute of repose for asbestos construction-improvement vs. seller/supplier claims. Research dossier 2026-05-19; CLEO PASS #7768; HAND triage #7736.

Show changes