Huffstetler v. Cont'l Tire The Ams.

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: September 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-488
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-488

Filed 3 September 2025

N.C. Industrial Commission, I.C. No. 16-753066

WILLIAM WESLEY HUFFSTETLER, Employee,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, Employer, self-insured, and GENERAL TIRE, INC./GENCORP., INC.; Employer, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier,

Defendants.

Appeal by plaintiff from the Opinion and Award entered 13 November 2023 by

the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5

November 2024.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Fox Rothschild LLP, by Jeri L. Whitfield, Kip David Nelson and Patrick M. Kane, for Defendant-Appellee Continental Tire the Americas.

Mullen Holland & Cooper, P.A., by John H. Russell, Jr., for Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

HAMPSON, Judge.

This case is one of approximately 150 workers’ compensation claims by or on

behalf of former employees filed against Continental Tire the Americas (Defendant) HUFFSTETLER V. CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS

Opinion of the Court

alleging illness stemming from exposure to asbestos while working in Defendant’s

tire manufacturing facility. Most of those cases—though not this case—were

consolidated for hearing (the Consolidated Cases) before the North Carolina

Industrial Commission (the Commission). From among those, six cases were chosen

to serve as “bellwether” cases (the Bellwether Cases), which would proceed first and

present both evidence specific to the claims of the Bellwether Plaintiffs as well as

evidence of exposure common to all claims. This common evidence would then be part

of the record in all of the remaining cases. A fuller discussion of the procedural

background may be found in our opinion in Funderburk v. Continental Tire the

Americas, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. COA 24-192, 2025), issued

simultaneously with this opinion.

The Industrial Commission found the common evidence presented in the

Bellwether Cases was insufficient to support a finding that employees were “exposed

to asbestos in any such form and quantity, and used with such frequency, as to cause

asbestosis or any asbestos-related condition.” We affirmed the Opinion and Award of

the Industrial Commission. Hinson v. Continental Tire the Americas, 267 N.C. App.

144, 832 S.E.2d 519 (2019).

Following our opinion in Hinson, Defendant moved to dismiss the asbestos-

related claims of the remaining 139 Consolidated Plaintiffs. 125 of the Consolidated

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving 14 pending claims. On 13

November 2023, the Full Commission entered Opinions and Awards dismissing the

-2- HUFFSTETLER V. CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS

remaining claims, including Plaintiff’s claim in this case, holding their claims were

barred by the Opinions and Awards in the Bellwether Cases under both collateral

estoppel and the doctrine of “law of the case.” Plaintiff and twelve other former

employees appealed, and we consolidated the thirteen appeals for hearing.

We address the Industrial Commission’s holding in our opinion in Funderburk

and, for the same reasons, hold it erred in holding Plaintiff’s claim in this case was

precluded under either collateral estoppel or the “law of the case.” We held the

plaintiff in Funderburk and other similarly-situated plaintiffs must be allowed to

present evidence specific to their claims, as the common evidence alone could not

show whether the plaintiffs were subject to more specific theories of exposure or

illness.

We note additionally that, as Plaintiff was not among the Consolidated

Plaintiffs, there is no indication in the Record that the common evidence introduced

in the Bellwether Cases was part of the evidentiary record in Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff

in this case does not even have the benefit of the common evidence, and therefore

there appears to be no evidence in the record upon which the Industrial Commission

could base its decision.

Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is not precluded by the prior Bellwether Claims.

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to present additional evidence, if any, in support of his

claim. Consequently, the full Commission erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s claim on the

bases of collateral estoppel and the law of the case.

-3- HUFFSTETLER V. CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS

For the foregoing reasons, the Opinion and Award of the Industrial

Commission is reversed and this matter is remanded to the Industrial Commission

for further proceedings in which the Commission shall allow the parties to produce

additional evidence as to their claims and defenses.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judge WOOD concurs.

Chief Judge DILLON concurs in result only.

-4-