O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-3-30.1 (2019)

Actions against manufacturers or suppliers of asbestos or material containing asbestos

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 9-3-30 or any other law, every action against a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos or material containing asbestos brought by or on behalf of any person or entity, public or private; or brought by or on behalf of this state or any agency, department, political subdivision, authority, board, district, or commission of the state; or brought by or on behalf of any municipality, county, or any state or local school board or local school district to recover for:

(1) Removal of asbestos or materials containing asbestos from any building owned or used by such entity;

(2) Other measures taken to correct or ameliorate any problem related to asbestos in such building;

(3) Reimbursement for such removal, correction, or amelioration related to asbestos in such building; or

(4) Any other claim for damage to real property allowed by law relating to asbestos in such building which might otherwise be barred prior to July 1, 1990, as a result of expiration of the applicable period of limitation, is revived or extended. Any action thereon shall be commenced no later than July 1, 1990.

(b) The enactment of this Code section shall not be construed to imply that any action against a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos or material containing asbestos is now barred by an existing limitations period.

(c) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to revive, extend, change, or otherwise affect the applicable period of limitation for persons or entities not set forth and provided for in subsection (a) of this Code section.

(d) Nothing contained in this Code section shall be construed to have any effect on actions for personal injury or any other claim except as specifically provided in this Code section.

History

Code 1981, § 9-3-30.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 1996, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - O.C.G.A. § 9-330.1 does not meet constitutional standards because it singles out for special treatment property claims against manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos and

differentiates them from all other claims that might be based upon other hazardous or toxic substances. Celotex Corp. v. St. Joseph Hosp., 259 Ga. 108, 376 S.E.2d 880, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 96 (1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Trials. Contractor’s Liability for Mishandling Toxic Substance, 37 Am. Jur. Trials 115. Cost Recovery Litigation: Abatement of Asbestos Contamination, 40 Am. Jur. Trials 317.

Handling Toxic Tort Litigation, 57 Am. Jur. Trials 395. Asbestos Injury Litigation, 60 Am. Jur. Trials 73.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2017 · leading case: Gliemmo v. Cousineau, 694 S.E.2d 75 (Ga. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gliemmo v. Cousineau, 694 S.E.2d 75 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 8× “2d 880 (1989), this Court found OCGA § 9-3-30.1 to be an unconstitutional special law.”
Celotex Corp. v. St. Joseph Hosp., 376 S.E.2d 880 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 14× “OCGA § 9-3-30.1, effective April 14, 1988, provides: (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Code Section 9-3-30 or any other law, every action against a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos or material containing asbestos brought by or on behalf of any person or entity, public or…”
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 797 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “5 percent by weight which is incidental to manufacturing”); OCGA § 9-3-30.1 (reviving or extending statute of limitations for certain actions against manufacturers and suppliers of “asbestos or material containing asbestos”); OCGA § 26-2-378 (requiring restaurants’ disclosure of…”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 197 v. W.R. Grace & Co., 752 F. Supp. 286 (D. Minnesota 1990). “See OCGA § 9-3-30.1. Upon questions certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the revival statute constituted a special law which violated Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 4(a) of the Constitution of Georgia…”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., 974 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1992). “O.C.G.A. § 9-3-30.1, effective April 14, 1988, would have revived otherwise time-barred asbestos abatement actions so as to permit filing of suit no later than July 1, 1990.”
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “5 percent by weight which is incidental to manufacturing”); OCGA § 9-3-30.1 (reviving or extending statute of limitations for certain actions against manufacturers and suppliers of “asbestos or material containing asbestos”); OCGA § 26-2-378 (requiring restaurants’ disclosure of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.