Articles Posted in Asbestos

Kansas state lawmakers recently took up debate in the legislature’s upper house over the passage of House Bill 2457, a law that could end up imposing serious restriction on the legal rights of asbestos cancer victims to recover vital compensation following a mesothelioma diagnosis. If approved, the bill would require mesothelioma patients to undertake a lengthy administrative and investigative process that could go beyond the time they have left.

In February 2018, the Kansas State House of Representatives passed their version of the bill with a 77-40 vote over the objections of advocates who claim the bill is necessary and places roadblocks to justice. House Bill 2457 is Supported by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, a statewide business and industrial coalition in the state of Kansas that often creates pro-business legislation.

If passed, House Bill 2457 would require asbestos cancer victims to file all possible claims against other defendants in a 30-day window, allowing a jury to consider shared liability among sources of asbestos exposure. Often times, this includes filing administrative claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts in lieu of formal lawsuits against solvent companies still doing business.

Mesothelioma is a serious disease with far-reaching consequences. Treatments can be expensive and time-intensive.

There are options available to victims of mesothelioma, and your situation could warrant taking legal action.

An experienced mesothelioma attorney can help you throughout the process, including:

An intermediate appeals court in New York recently denied a motion brought forth by a group of asbestos product related companies attempting to challenge the types of damages cancer victims can recover and the state’s special asbestos court system as a whole. The appeal comes a year after the courts modified their case management orders to allow plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in mesothelioma cancer lawsuits and less than one month after a state jury handed down a record breaking $60 million plaintiff’s verdict.

The special asbestos court, known as the New York Court of Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL), is one of the country’s largest backlog of asbestos cancer cases and has created its own unique rules to help move along cases on the docket. One of those case management orders was an agreement with defendants to defer punitive damages in exchange for waivers of due process rights to allow cases to move more quickly through the courts.

Punitive damages are a special type of award meant to punish defendants for especially egregious conduct and serve as a type of warning to prevent other entities from engaging in similarly reckless behavior. The agreement between the asbestos companies and the courts had remained in place for almost two decades until 2014 when punitive damages were reintroduced by a Manhattan Supreme Court justice.

After already handing down a $37 million verdict in favor of the plaintiffs at the conclusion of a two-month asbestos cancer trial, a New Jersey state jury recently handed down a staggering $80 million in punitive damages against the defendants. In reaching their decision, the jury determined that pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier Imerys acted with recklessness when they produced asbestos-contaminated talc products knowing full well of the dangers posed to consumers.

The Middlesex County Superior Court jury apportioned $55 million of the punitive damages to be paid by Johnson & Johnson while Imerys will be responsible for the remaining $25 million in addition to compensatory damages already handed down. The verdict and awards are significant as it is the first plaintiff’s verdict against the defendants over allegations that the pair knowingly put thousands of innocent people at risk of developing mesothelioma and other serious forms of deadly cancer.

According to the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the victim developed mesothelioma from years of asbestos exposure due to using the tainted talcum powder products produced by the defendants. Mesothelioma is a rare and deadly form of cancer that commonly affects thin linings of tissues surrounding vital organs like the heart, lungs, and abdomen and is directly linked to asbestos exposure.

You have an old house that was built in the early 1900s, and your family is investing thousands of dollars in a remodeling project. The contractors have signed on for the work and are about to begin. But you may have overlooked something.

Asbestos? Couldn’t be, you think. Your inspector made no mention of it when you bought the house four years earlier. But upon your research, you learn that many older homes – including some built through the 1980s – contain asbestos.

What you discover soon startles you. Asbestos – a fire-retardant material used in home construction – can be found in a number of places within a home. When asbestos becomes damaged, its fibers become airborne and easily inhaled, potentially leading to severe illnesses such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

A New Jersey state jury recently handed down a substantial verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a groundbreaking talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuit filed against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. After weeks of testimony, the jury awarded the plaintiff $37 million in damages to the plaintiff who claimed he developed mesothelioma after years of inhaling asbestos-contaminated talc products produced by the defendants.

The Middlesex Superior Court jury determined that Johnson & Johnson was 70% responsible for the plaintiff’s mesothelioma diagnosis and France-based talc supplier Imerys was liable for the remaining 30% of damages. The verdict came on the first full day of deliberations after two months of testimony in which both sides argued vigorously for their positions and multiple expert witnesses were called to testify.

During the trial, Johnson & Johnson’s defense lawyers argued that the plaintiff could have contracted mesothelioma from various other sources. It noted that the house in Montclair, New Jersey where the plaintiff grew up once had asbestos-wrapped pipes and that the public schools attended were also treated for asbestos at some point in the past. Fortunately, jurors sided with the plaintiff and his wife and awarded them the appropriate amount of compensation for their damages.

The Missouri state House of Representatives recently approved legislation that could impact the amount of compensation mesothelioma cancer victims could receive for their claims when filing lawsuits against defendants. With Missouri juries handing down substantial verdicts to plaintiffs harmed by the deadly products developed by asbestos companies, lobbyists for the business and insurance companies have long eyed the state for so-called “tort reform” to limit compensation to plaintiffs.

As part of the effort to limit plaintiffs’ access to justice, the Missouri House approved a bill meant to force mesothelioma plaintiffs to disclose whether or not they have filed administrative claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts. The Missouri Senate is expected to take up the legislation soon and the state may join a growing list of other states that have already passed these asbestos claims transparency laws promulgated by the likes of pro business and insurance lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Asbestos bankruptcy trusts were created by companies that were no longer solvent but needed a way to release themselves from legal liability in order to qualify for federal bankruptcy protections. Asbestos companies set aside tens of billions of dollars for mesothelioma cancer victims to file administrative claims with and are often seen as a much more expedient way for plaintiffs to receive the compensation they need to pay for vital medical treatment.

Legislation that would limit asbestos lawsuits continues to make the rounds throughout the country with Indiana and Kansas lawmakers being the latest to consider it. Created by conservative organization the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the bill in similar formats has been enacted in 12 other states.

Critics charge that such legislation is unfair to terminally-ill cancer victims who were exposed to the fire-resistant asbestos while on the job. If the bill is enacted, they would not be able to sue a manufacturer after more than 10 years had elapsed since being exposed to asbestos. However, asbestos-related diseases are seldom diagnosed within 10 years of exposure.

Mesothelioma: a usually fatal cancer

Michigan state lawmakers recently passed legislation that could severely restrict access to justice for mesothelioma cancer victims seeking their day in court to recover vital compensation and hold asbestos companies responsible for their dangerous products. The 58-51 vote, along party lines, passed the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act as a means to prevent so-called “double dipping” by plaintiffs seeking to recover the compensation they need to pay for medical bills and lost wages.

In some states, mesothelioma cancer victims have the option to file administrative claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts set up by companies wthat sought federal bankruptcy protections but still needed to fund settlements for future liabilities. Michigan is one of numerous states that recently passed similar legislation forcing plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against solvent parties to disclose whether or not they have filed claims with any asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the law also has another built-in component designed to deny and delay otherwise meritorious claims Under the bill, if the defendant in an asbestos action identified an asbestos trust claim not previously identified that the defendant thinks the plaintiff could file, the defendant could request a stay of the proceeding.

Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell recently introduced legislation to protect children from the hidden dangers in makeup products recently pulled from store shelves after news investigations revealed the contaminated merchandise was circulating in popular stores. The legislation, dubbed the Children’s Product Warning Label Act of 2018, would impose new labeling requirements on all cosmetic products marketing to children and inform consumers whether or not the items have been properly vetted.

If passed, the Children’s Product Warning Label Act of 2018 would require cosmetics companies to include a warning label that the product has not been evaluated for asbestos contamination unless certain testing is performed. This includes the manufacturer attesting in writing to the Secretary of the FDA that the source of the cosmetic products comes from an asbestos free-mine, and that they demonstrated to FDA that the product is asbestos-free using the transmission electron microscopy method.

“Parents across the country should have the peace of mind in knowing that the cosmetics they buy for their children are safe. Yet we were all stunned when the retailer Claire’s pulled 17 products from their shelves after asbestos was found in cosmetics marketed to children, including glitter and eye shadow,” said Dingell. “No child should be exposed to asbestos through the use of common, everyday products.”

Contact Information