La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5644 (2026)

Prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§5644.  Prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement

A.  Asbestos abatement shall include any of the following:

(1)  The removal of asbestos or materials containing asbestos from any building.

(2)  Any other measures taken to detect, correct, or ameliorate any problem related to asbestos in a building.

(3)  Reimbursement for the removal, correction, or amelioration of asbestos or materials containing asbestos.

B.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any time limitation or prescriptive period which may be applicable to any action to recover for asbestos abatement work shall not apply or expire until five years after the date on which the party seeking to recover has completed the abatement work or discovered the identity of the manufacturer of the materials which require abatement, whichever is later.

C.  Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive period provided in R.S. 9:5644* shall have one year from the effective date of this Act within which to bring an action or be forever barred.

D.  Nothing in this Section is intended to nor shall it have the effect of changing in any respect the applicable prescription periods fixed by law for benefits under the worker's compensation law for claims for damages due to asbestos related injury or disease.

Acts 1985, No. 728, §1.

*NOTE:  AS APPEARS IN ENROLLED BILL.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Cameron Par. Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 687 So. 2d 84 (La. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cameron Par. Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 687 So. 2d 84 (La. 1997). · cites it 50× “R.S. 9:5644, relative to prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement, was declared unconstitutional by a trial court under Art.”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., 974 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 22× “23 Selection of the Appropriate Prescriptive Period Among the possible Louisiana prescriptive periods from which we must select are: (1) the general one-year prescriptive period applicable to torts; 24 (2) the one-year prescriptive period applicable to damage to immovable…”
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 892 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. La. 1995). · cites it 13× “To avoid prescription, the School Board contends that subsection C of the 1985 statute revives its otherwise prescribed action: Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive…”
Cameron Par. Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 646 So. 2d 976 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 17× “R.S. 9:5644, contends that its suit was timely filed.”
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. Asbestos Corp., 114 F.3d 66 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “9:5644(C): Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive period provided in R.S. 9:5644 shall have one year from the effective date of this Act within which to bring an…”
White v. West Carroll Hosp., Inc., 613 So. 2d 150 (La. 1992). “R.S. 9:5644, is at issue. The motion of the attorney general to intervene on the basis of the constitutionality of the retroactive application of Act 661 was granted by this court.”
In Re Succession of McKay, 921 So. 2d 1219 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 9:5644, relative to prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement, contained no "clear and unequivocal" expression by the legislature to revive claims that had already prescribed.”
In Re Succession of Faget, 938 So. 2d 1003 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “'" It then found "such liberal use by the legislature of the word or phrases `action,' `any action,' `all actions,' and `any and all actions' in [respective] prescriptive statutes supportive of [its] determination that the legislature, in using such wording in the statute at…”
Chef Menteur Land Co., Ltd. v. Sandrock, 78 So. 3d 146 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:5644, the court found that the five-year prescriptive period in the statute was likewise inapplicable, as the instant case did not involve asbestos abatement against a manufacturer; rather, it was an action to recover the cost of remediation due to illegal dumping.”
Sec. Homestead Ass'n v. W.R. Grace & Co., 743 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. La. 1990). · cites it 20× “Security first discovered the presence of asbestos in its fireproofing materials in October 1986 and initiated this suit in November 1988 under Louisiana’a asbestos abatement statute, LSA R.S. 9:5644, 1 after discovering *458 that this friable asbestos was now present in air…”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co. (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 22× “R.S. 9:5644, as being violative of the equal protection clause of the 1983 Georgia Constitution.”
Marriott Hotel Prop. II, Ltd. P'ship v. United States Gypsum Co., 675 So. 2d 751 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “The fifth cause of action alleged that Marriott incurred substantial expenses in connection with the removal of the asbestos, thereby entitling it to recover such expenses and damages from USG under LSA-R.S. 9:5644. In its sixth cause of action, Marriott alleged that at the time…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5644(0): 1 case
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 892 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. La. 1995). “To avoid prescription, the School Board contends that subsection C of the 1985 statute revives its otherwise prescribed action: Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5644(B): 6 cases
Cameron Par. Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 687 So. 2d 84 (La. 1997). “R.S. 9:5644, relative to prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement, was declared unconstitutional by a trial court under Art.”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., 974 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1992). “23 Selection of the Appropriate Prescriptive Period Among the possible Louisiana prescriptive periods from which we must select are: (1) the general one-year prescriptive period applicable to torts; 24 (2) the one-year prescriptive period applicable to damage to immovable…”
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 892 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. La. 1995). “To avoid prescription, the School Board contends that subsection C of the 1985 statute revives its otherwise prescribed action: Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive…”
Sec. Homestead Ass'n v. W.R. Grace & Co., 743 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. La. 1990). “Security first discovered the presence of asbestos in its fireproofing materials in October 1986 and initiated this suit in November 1988 under Louisiana’a asbestos abatement statute, LSA R.S. 9:5644, 1 after discovering *458 that this friable asbestos was now present in air…”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co. (5th Cir. 1992). “R.S. 9:5644, as being violative of the equal protection clause of the 1983 Georgia Constitution.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5644(C): 5 cases
Trizec Props., Inc. v. United States Mineral Prods. Co., 974 F.2d 602 (5th Cir. 1992). “23 Selection of the Appropriate Prescriptive Period Among the possible Louisiana prescriptive periods from which we must select are: (1) the general one-year prescriptive period applicable to torts; 24 (2) the one-year prescriptive period applicable to damage to immovable…”
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 892 F. Supp. 794 (E.D. La. 1995). “To avoid prescription, the School Board contends that subsection C of the 1985 statute revives its otherwise prescribed action: Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive…”
Cameron Par. Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 687 So. 2d 84 (La. 1997). “R.S. 9:5644, relative to prescription of actions involving asbestos abatement, was declared unconstitutional by a trial court under Art.”
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. Asbestos Corp., 114 F.3d 66 (5th Cir. 1997). “9:5644(C): Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive period provided in R.S. 9:5644 shall have one year from the effective date of this Act within which to bring an…”
Trizec Props., Inc. v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co. (5th Cir. 1992). “R.S. 9:5644, as being violative of the equal protection clause of the 1983 Georgia Constitution.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5644(c): 1 case
Orleans Par. Sch. Bd. v. Asbestos Corp., 114 F.3d 66 (5th Cir. 1997). “9:5644(C): Any person who has an action to recover for asbestos abatement work under the provisions of this Section but whose action is barred by the prescriptive period provided in R.S. 9:5644 shall have one year from the effective date of this Act within which to bring an…”
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.