Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

William Dunn (P), a former pipe installer at Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corporation (HOVIC), filed this action against D as well as other manufacturers of asbestos-containing products, alleging personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos. Following a trial in which liability and compensatory damages were determined before the issue of punitive damages, the jury awarded Dunn $1.3 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages against the sole remaining defendant, D, the distributor and later manufacturer of Kaylo, an asbestos-containing pipe covering. D filed post-trial motions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59 requesting a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The district court denied the motion for JNOV but conditioned the denial of the motion for a new trial on Dunn's acceptance of a remittitur of the compensatory award to $500,000 and the punitive award to $2 million. Dunn v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 774 F. Supp. 929, 951-52 (D.V.I. 1991). Dunn accepted the remittitur, and D appealed. A panel of this court heard argument on D's appeal on April 22, 1992, and issued an opinion affirming the compensatory damages award and remitting the punitive damages award to $1 million. Thereafter, the court granted D's petition for rehearing in banc, limited to the punitive damages issue. D directed its argument to its contention that multiple awards of punitive damages in asbestos-related injury cases should be prohibited as a matter of Virgin Islands law or federal due process.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.