The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion Tuesday affirming a lower court decision in a complex asbestos personal injury case against DBMP, LLC. The court ruled in *Michael N. Herlihy v. DBMP, LLC* (4th Cir. 2026), with Judge Niemeyer writing the majority opinion and Judge Harris joining, while Judge King dissented.
The case involves multiple claimants, including Michael N. Herlihy, Ann Herlihy, and the Estate of Peter L. Bergrud, who appealed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell originally handled the case in Charlotte, with the district court proceeding under case number 3:24-cv-00558-KDB.
DBMP, LLC serves as the debtor-appellee in this litigation, indicating the case involves bankruptcy proceedings alongside the personal injury claims. The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants of DBMP, LLC participated as amicus curiae supporting the appellants, demonstrating the broader implications for asbestos victims.
The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments on Oct. 22, 2025, before reaching its decision on Feb. 11, 2026. The published nature of the opinion suggests the court viewed the legal issues as sufficiently important to provide precedential guidance for future similar cases.
Representing the appellants, attorney Jonathan Ruckdeschel of The Ruckdeschel Law Firm, LLC in Ellicott City, Maryland, argued the case before the circuit court. Additional counsel for the claimants included Thomas W. Waldrep Jr., Chris W. Haaf, and Diana S. Johnson from Waldrep Wall Babcock & Bailey PLLC in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. John L. Steffan of St. Louis, Missouri, and Clayton L. Thompson from Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC in New York also provided representation for the appellants.
DBMP, LLC retained C. Kevin Marshall of Jones Day's Washington, D.C. office to handle the oral argument. The company's legal team included Gregory M. Gordon from Dallas, Jeffrey B. Ellman from Atlanta, and Sarah Welch from Jones Day's Cleveland office. Local North Carolina counsel Garland S. Cassada and Richard C. Worf from Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. in Charlotte also represented the debtor.
The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants secured representation from Natalie D. Ramsey and Davis Lee Wright of Robinson & Cole LLP in Wilmington, Delaware. Additional counsel for the amicus curiae included Kevin C. Maclay, Todd E. Phillips, and Jeffrey A. Liesemer from Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered in Washington, D.C.
The extensive legal representation on all sides reflects the complexity and high stakes involved in asbestos litigation within bankruptcy proceedings. Such cases typically involve questions about the priority and treatment of personal injury claims against companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection due to asbestos liabilities.
Asbestos litigation has created significant challenges for courts handling both personal injury claims and corporate bankruptcies. Companies facing numerous asbestos-related lawsuits often seek bankruptcy protection to manage their liabilities through structured settlement processes. The involvement of an official committee representing asbestos claimants indicates DBMP, LLC likely filed for bankruptcy specifically to address asbestos-related liabilities.
The split decision among the Fourth Circuit judges suggests the legal issues were not straightforward. Judge King's dissent indicates disagreement with the majority's interpretation of applicable law or facts. Published circuit court opinions in asbestos cases often address procedural questions about claim evaluation, settlement approval, or the interaction between bankruptcy law and personal injury litigation.
The affirmance of the lower court decision means the district court's ruling in favor of DBMP, LLC stands. This outcome impacts not only the named appellants but potentially other asbestos claimants with similar claims against the company.
Asbestos litigation continues to generate complex legal questions decades after the health risks of asbestos exposure became widely known. Courts must balance the rights of injured parties to seek compensation with the practical realities of corporate bankruptcy proceedings designed to provide orderly resolution of massive tort liabilities.
The case represents ongoing challenges in the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. These states have seen significant asbestos litigation due to historical industrial activity in shipbuilding, manufacturing, and other industries that extensively used asbestos materials.
The appellants may now consider seeking Supreme Court review through a petition for certiorari, though the high court accepts only a small percentage of such requests. The case highlights the continuing evolution of asbestos litigation within the federal court system and its intersection with bankruptcy law.