December, 2018

North Carolina Couple Awarded $32.7 Million in Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit

December 28, 2018 | Throneberry Law Group

A federal jury recently handed down a $32.7 million award to the widow of a North Carolina man who passed away from a mesothelioma his estate claimed was due to asbestos exposure facilitated by hazardous conditions created by the defendants in the case. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit named a pipe insulation supplier, Covil Corporation, as the main defendant in the case, alleging the company knowingly supplied carcinogenic materials for workers at the Firestone tire factory where the victim worked.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in August 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, the now deceased victim in the case was frequently exposed to deadly asbestos fibers while working at a Firestone tire factory from 1975 to 1995. The mesothelioma lawsuit claims that exposure took place due to asbestos-contaminated insulation supplied by the defendant, Covil Corporation.

Despite knowing full well the dangers its asbestos insulation products posed to workers at the Firestone tire plant, Covil Corporation made no attempt to provide warnings about the dangers of exposure to asbestos in its products, according to the lawsuit. After five days of testimony, the federal jury took just two hours to decide in favor of the victim and awarded his surviving spouse $32.7 million in compensatory damages for the harm brought on by the defendant’s negligence.

Pennsylvania Couple Files Asbestos Cancer Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson

December 20, 2018 | Throneberry Law Group

A Pennsylvania couple recently filed an asbestos cancer lawsuit in a Philadelphia court against several companies over allegations that the defendants knowingly manufactured and sold carcinogenic talc-based products that caused the victim’s cancer diagnosis. The asbestos lawsuit names cosmetics and pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, its talc supplier Imerys Talc USA, Rite Aid Corporation, and Walgreen Co. as defendants and seeks compensation for the victim’s injuries.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the female plaintiff developed ovarian cancer after years of using talcum powder products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson with contaminated talc sourced by Imerys Talc USA. The plaintiff further alleges that she purchased the defective products at both Rite Aid and Walgreens stores throughout the years, which knew or should have known Johnson & Johnson’s products posed a danger to the public.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit in this case is one of thousands Johnson & Johnson and Imerys Talc USA are facing across the country over allegations that the companies sold asbestos-contaminated talcum powder products for decades but did not put warning labels on items like Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. Some of those cases claim the victims developed ovarian cancer as a result, like the plaintiff in this case, while others assert their mesothelioma cancer diagnosis came about as a result of asbestos exposure from talc.

New York Judge Orders Johnson & Johnson to Stand Trial in Asbestos Talcum Powder Lawsuit

December 17, 2018 | Throneberry Law Group

A New York judge recently ordered pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson to stand trial in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who claims he developed an aggressive form of cancer due to carcinogenic materials contained in products manufactured by the defendant. Johnson & Johnson had filed a motion for summary judgement, seeking to have the case thrown out of court and avoid any liability for knowingly manufacturing deadly products without warning consumers about the risks.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in the Supreme Court of New York County, the plaintiff developed pleural mesothelioma at the age of 76 after decades of using Baby Powder and other talc-based products developed and sold by Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff claims she did not suffer from any industrial asbestos exposure at her work place and that the only possible source for the exposure came from the carcinogenic asbestos in the talcum powders she used.

Although talc, a naturally occurring mineral, does not contain asbestos fibers itself, the two are often found in deposits side by side one another, which can cause a risk of contamination if certain precautions are not taken. Asbestos itself has been heavily regulated since the 1970s when the federal government enacted legislation to protect the public from the known risks of asbestos exposure. However, even before regulators stepped in, many companies were fully aware of the risks their products posed and continued to manufacture dangerously designed and defective materials.

New York Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiffs in Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit

December 7, 2018 | Throneberry Law Group

The family of an asbestos cancer victim may finally find justice after a New York state court ruled in their favor against a tile company they claim is responsible for the death of their loved one. The defendants had filed what is known as a motion for summary judgement to have the case tossed out on evidentiary rules but the judge hearing the case rejected the arguments put forth and will allow the claim to proceed to trial.

In their mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim their father died in April 2017, just six-months after receiving a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis brought on by exposure to asbestos fibers in tiles produced by the defendant, Amtico Tile. The lawsuit alleges the victims spent more than a dozen years renovating homes using the defendant’s floor tiles, which had visible asbestos dust on top of the tiles in the boxes that he opened. The claim states the victim suffered from exposure to asbestos dust raised by cutting, scoring, breaking, and sanding tiles so that they would fit in the rooms where he was installing them.

The defendants attempted to have the case thrown out of court by asserting the plaintiffs had not established a clear connection between exposure to asbestos dust in their products and the terminal health conditions the victim developed. In denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgement, the New York Supreme Court pointed out that the plaintiffs met all the criteria necessary to have the claim proceed under New York laws and eventually be heard in front of a jury if necessary.