No. 17-1104October Term 2018Decided Mar 19, 2019
Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries
Under maritime law, an equipment maker may have to warn about asbestos risks from later-added parts if its own product depended on those parts and made the danger foreseeable.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Mar 19, 2019
- What it's about
This case was about when, under maritime law, equipment manufacturers must warn users about the dangers of asbestos in insulation or replacement parts that were later added by the Navy or other third parties. The Court held that a manufacturer has that duty to warn when its product requires the later-added part to work as intended, the finished product is likely dangerous, and the manufacturer has no reason to think users would already know about the danger.
Question presented
Can products-liability defendants be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell, or distribute?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit / Decision released Mar 19, 2019
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Briefing
What it's about
The case asked when makers of Navy equipment must warn about asbestos dangers from insulation or replacement parts later added by the Navy or other third parties. The Court said they can have that duty under maritime law when the equipment needs the added part to work as intended, the finished product is likely dangerous, and users would not already know the risk.
Impact
The decision affects maritime asbestos lawsuits against equipment makers, even when they did not make or sell the asbestos-containing part itself. For example, sailors or shipyard workers may still sue if a pump or boiler required asbestos parts to work and the danger was not obvious.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this case. Lower courts must now apply this warning-duty test in future maritime asbestos cases involving equipment and later-added parts.
What was the main fight in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries?
The dispute was whether equipment makers could be liable for failing to warn about asbestos in parts they did not make or sell. The Court said yes in some circumstances.
Who is most affected by this decision in the real world?
Sailors, shipyard workers, and equipment manufacturers are directly affected. The ruling can shape asbestos injury claims involving pumps, boilers, and other ship equipment.
What happens after the Supreme Court's decision in this case?
The Supreme Court's role is over. Other courts now use this rule when deciding similar maritime asbestos warning cases.
Decision
What the Court decided
Under maritime law, an equipment maker may have to warn about asbestos risks from later-added parts if its own product depended on those parts and made the danger foreseeable.
Impact
The decision affects maritime asbestos lawsuits against equipment makers, even when they did not make or sell the asbestos-containing part itself. For example, sailors or shipyard workers may still sue if a pump or boiler required asbestos parts to work and the danger was not obvious.
Not official Court text.
Opinion documents
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials11
Supreme Court docket 17-1104
docket | Jul 3, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Jul 3, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Jul 3, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | May 26, 2026
opinion
opinion | Mar 19, 2019
Petition
brief | Jan 31, 2018
Lower Court Orders/Opinions
order | Dec 8, 2017
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026
SupremeCourt.gov
official | Jul 2, 2026