# Edmonds Indus. Coatings, Inc. v. Lolley

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · June 4, 2004 · 893 So. 2d 1197

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931819

## Case

- **Full name:** Edmonds Industrial Coatings, Inc. v. Roger Dale Lolley. Edmonds Industrial Coatings, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America and Wausau Insurance Company.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 4, 2004
- **Citations:** 893 So. 2d 1197; 2004 WL 1231642
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Murdock
- **Judges:** Crawley, Murdock, Pittman
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931819

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming an award of benefits for COPD as an occupational disease, despite the fact that the employee was a smoker, because the appellate court concluded that the trial court must have found that the employee’s workplace exposure to paint fumes was “sufficient in intensity an…

## Opinion text

I concur only in the result as to case no. 2020861, because I cannot agree with all of the statements in the main opinion's analysis. Among other things, I am not prepared to accept the reasons for which the main opinion concludes that Dueitt v. Scott Paper Co. , 695 So.2d 40 , 44 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996), is not applicable to the present case. Moreover, as to Part V.C. of the main opinion, I cannot agree with all of the statements in the court's discussion of contributing and aggravating causes and the manner in which it distinguishes from the present case the cases of Ex parte Valdez , 636 So.2d 401 (Ala. 1994), and Chrysler Corp. v. Henley , 400 So.2d 412 (Ala.Civ.App. 1981).
As to case no. 2030212, I respectfully dissent. I believe the main opinion incorrectly applies the last-injurious-exposure rule to the facts of this case. *Page 1212

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9931819. Public record. Not legal advice.