Articles Posted in Companies & Asbestos

In a recent court decision, an asbestos contractor in Jefferson County, Colorado, was found guilty of several crimes after his fraudulent and careless acts endangered his workers, a client, and a whole neighborhood. The contractor’s actions put his employees, the client, and the entire neighborhood at risk of developing mesothelioma in the future. The contractor handled asbestos removal poorly and charged the client $70,000 for the poor work. Asbestos is a well-known health hazard, and its removal requires strict adherence to safety protocols. Failure to abide by the set guidelines can result in severe consequences.

The 82-year-old owner of a fire-damaged four-unit rental property in Arvada hired the contractor, Lance Slayton, in 2022 to clean and repair the property. This was when the risk of future mesothelioma diagnoses in the neighborhood began. Lance’s work included properly removing asbestos-contaminated materials from the property. However, according to the state attorney general’s office, instead of the contractor handling the toxic material properly, his company ignored safety protocols and removed the dangerous material improperly and disposed of it in an unsafe manner, putting the employees and residents exposed to the asbestos at risk.

Asbestos is generally not harmful when left undisturbed. However, when asbestos is disturbed or damaged, it can release tiny fibers into the air, which, when inhaled, can cause serious health problems like mesothelioma. Mesothelioma, a disease that affects the mesothelium, is a form of cancer that is rare and quite aggressive. After asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can become stuck in the body, causing inflammation and scarring over time. This can eventually lead to mesothelioma, which often has a long latency period. It can take 20 to 60 years or more for mesothelioma to develop after initial asbestos exposure. Because mesothelioma can take so long to develop, the full impact of this incident may not be felt for quite some time.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as T.C.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently denied an asbestos company’s motion to overturn a mesothelioma verdict. T.C. was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer, almost eight years ago, and over two years ago, a jury ordered his employer to pay his surviving loved ones $2.3 million in damages after concluding that the employer was liable for T.C.’s illness. Despite there being enough evidence to prove that the employer played a role in T.C.’s illness and the verdict, the employer sought to overturn the decision by filing a motion for a retrial or entry of a judgment in their favor. According to Lenox Instrument Company (employer), T.C.’s family had failed to prove its (the employer’s) role in his disease.

Mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive type of cancer that primarily affects the lungs, abdomen, or heart. This illness occurs after someone is exposed to asbestos, a fibrous mineral that was once widely used in construction, manufacturing, and other industries. When asbestos is left undisturbed, it does not pose any threat. However, when disturbed, asbestos releases tiny fibers into the air, which, when inhaled or ingested, can get stuck in the body, resulting in inflammation and cellular damage over time. This damage can eventually cause mesothelioma.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as A.F.

In a recent court case, a New York County Supreme Court judge denied Burnham LLC’s request to dismiss a punitive damages claim in a mesothelioma lawsuit. A.F., a former worker, was exposed to asbestos through Burnham boilers and other asbestos-contaminated equipment. A.F. and his wife filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for compensatory and punitive damages from Burnham LLC. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages, but that motion was denied.

After suffering mesothelioma, a victim can file a personal injury lawsuit and seek compensatory damages, which aim to make up for direct losses. Compensatory damages include medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Mesothelioma victims’ spouses can also seek compensation for loss of companionship and support. In a mesothelioma claim, victims and their families can also seek punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for particularly reckless or harmful behavior. These damages are intended to send a message to others and warn them against acting in the same manner as the defendant.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as H.C. and his wife as R.C.

In a recent court decision, an Allegheny County jury awarded a mesothelioma victim and his wife almost $4 million in damages. H.C. received a malignant mesothelioma diagnosis after working as a boilermaker for a long time. After his diagnosis, H.C. and his wife, R.C., filed a lawsuit against Foster Wheeler, his former employer. H.C. blamed Foster Wheeler for his mesothelioma. H.C. claimed that the company failed to protect workers from asbestos exposure, leading to his illness. Mesothelioma is one of the illnesses that can develop after a person is exposed to asbestos. After listening to the case, the jury found Foster Wheeler liable for H.C.’s illness.

The jury learned that in the many years that H.C. was a boilermaker, he only worked for Foster Wheeler for ten weeks. Foster Wheeler provides engineering services, manufactures boilers, and services boilers across the U.S. and worldwide. Despite the existence of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations meant to prevent mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses, Foster Wheeler did not comply with these regulations. Foster Wheeler’s legal representatives argued that other companies owned the site were responsible for ensuring workers were safe. However, the jury found that it was the defendant’s negligence that directly contributed to Mr. H.C.’s fatal illness.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as J.K.

In a recent court case, a Virginia jury awarded $3.45 million to the family of a deceased mesothelioma victim in a case against John Crane, Inc., a company known for manufacturing asbestos-contaminated products. The victim in this case, who will be referred to as J.K., died of malignant mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer that is primarily caused by asbestos exposure in 2022. After his death, J.K.’s family filed a lawsuit against John Crane, Inc., alleging that J.K.’s occupational asbestos exposure occurred while he was working with asbestos-containing products made by the company. Recently, a jury hearing the case ruled in favor of J.K.’s family and held John Crane, Inc. responsible for its failure to adequately warn about the dangers of its products.

During the trial, jury members listened to details about J.K.’s career as a millwright. For around 18 years (between 1961 and 1979), J.K. was a millwright at a plant in Chesterfield County. While there, his responsibilities included repairing and maintaining equipment such as valves and pumps. Unfortunately, when carrying out his tasks, he unknowingly inhaled microscopic asbestos fibers, putting himself at risk of developing mesothelioma. The jury heard evidence that over time, the wear and tear of the parts that J.K. repaired and maintained caused asbestos fibers to break free, contaminating the air in the workplace.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mrs. I.L.L, and her husband will be referred to as Mr. A.C.L.

In this case, I.L.L. was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and died of the asbestos-related illness in 2023 at the age of 91. Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive form of cancer that can develop decades after asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma involves tumors growing in the mesothelium (the tissue covering most internal organs). There are different types of mesothelioma: pleural mesothelioma (most common), peritoneal mesothelioma, pericardial mesothelioma, and testicular mesothelioma (least common). After I.L.L.’s diagnosis, she and her family filed a lawsuit against several asbestos companies.

According to Mrs. L’s lawsuit, she developed mesothelioma after suffering secondary asbestos exposure. Mrs. L’s illness came from laundering her husband’s work clothes. Mr. A.C.L., who worked at Avondale Shipyard, Louisiana, was a laborer, pipefitter, and welder whose work resulted in his clothes being covered in asbestos fibers. Mr. A.C.L. brought home asbestos fibers on his work clothes. Unfortunately, every night, Mrs. I.L.L. laundered the asbestos-contaminated work clothes. This meant that she was repeatedly exposed to asbestos fibers.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. B.Z.

In this case, a Utah resident, Mr. B.Z. Claims that his mesothelioma was caused by talc pleurodesis, a procedure that was meant to help him. Talc pleurodesis is a medical procedure that helps prevent fluid or air from accumulating in the pleural cavity. This medical procedure is for patients with respiratory issues such as malignant pleural mesothelioma. Many people have and continue to benefit from talc pleurodesis. Unfortunately, for B.Z., a procedure that was supposed to help him ended up causing him harm. According to Mr. B.Z., the talc used during his treatments in 2014 and 2020 resulted in him developing mesothelioma.

Over the years, many ovarian cancer and malignant mesothelioma patients have filed lawsuits against manufacturers and suppliers of cosmetic and industrial talc. These individuals have blamed these companies for acting negligently by failing to warn people about the presence of asbestos in their products and for distributing unsafe goods that can cause several health issues.

Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive form of cancer that develops after someone suffers asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a substance that was widely used many years ago due to its qualities. However, as much as asbestos is no longer widely used, legacy asbestos remains a huge concern. Legacy asbestos is asbestos-containing materials installed in buildings, products, or equipment before the 1980s. Asbestos was commonly used in construction and manufacturing due to its fire-resistant and insulating qualities. Buildings containing materials installed before the use of asbestos started being regulated may still contain asbestos, posing risks during renovations and demolition. Asbestos activists and mesothelioma advocates are constantly warning people of the dangers of legacy asbestos. Recent happenings in California show that these concerns are warranted. A senior living facility in California was recently fined $1,125,000 in fines for failing to test for asbestos in its homes.

Malignant mesothelioma is often diagnosed in individuals who were exposed to asbestos many years ago when it was still frequently used. This illness can be diagnosed up to 60 years or more after asbestos exposure. However, while mesothelioma is no longer widely used, it continues to pose significant risks. Buildings and machinery built and sold before 1980 may still contain asbestos. Despite stringent laws about asbestos management, many people ignore these rules to cut costs or avoid delays. This puts many people at risk of developing mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses.

Covia Communities, renamed Front Porch, knew about the dangers of asbestos exposure. However, despite knowing this, the senior living facility developer renovated its facilities without adhering to asbestos regulations. The developer did not obtain building permits or test for asbestos. Asbestos laws require building materials to be sampled and tested before renovation or demolition work can commence.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as L.G.

In a recent court decision, the Supreme Court of New York rejected a talc supplier’s motion for summary judgment. This case centers around a woman who we will refer to as L.G. in this article. L.G. was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma after years of using talc powder products. Kolmar Laboratories, the manufacturer of the products, was named as one of the defendants in L.G.’s negligence claim. Kolmar Laboratories petitioned for removal from the lawsuit, but the company’s arguments failed. The case will move forward for a jury to weigh the evidence.

After L.G. was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, she traced the cause of her illness to the Johnson & Johnson talc powder products she had used for many years. Malignant mesothelioma is a form of cancer that affects the thin tissue lining most internal organs, known as the mesothelium. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer. In the United States, around 3,000 new mesothelioma cases are diagnosed yearly. This illness is primarily caused by asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral whose fibers are strong and heat resistant. This made asbestos useful in a wide variety of applications. When asbestos is disturbed, tiny fibers are released into the air, which can get stuck in the mesothelium after being inhaled or ingested. Over time, a person may suffer inflammation and scarring, leading to the development of malignant mesothelioma. Kolmar Laboratories manufactured the Johnson & Johnson products that L.G. used. Because of this, Kolmar was named as one of the defendants in L.G.’s mesothelioma claim.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as P.J.M.

In a recent court decision, Justice Adam Silvera denied DAP’s motion for summary judgment despite them presenting affidavits provided by their employee. In this case, the family of P.J.M., who passed away due to mesothelioma, an illness that develops due to asbestos exposure, named DAP Inc. and others as defendants. The family blamed P.J.M.’s disease on exposure to several products that contained asbestos. DAP requested dismissal from the case by filing a motion for summary judgment. The defendant claimed it did not make or sell the products the family is blaming for Mr. P.J.M.’s illness. Despite DAP’s assertion, the court denied the petition and allowed the case to proceed.

Often, defendants in mesothelioma lawsuits and other asbestos-related lawsuits seek dismissal by arguing that the lawsuit is baseless. It is common for defendants to argue that their products were not involved in the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure. It is common for defendants to claim that their products could not have contributed to the claimant’s illness. However, in the New York County Supreme Court, such arguments are often denied because the bar for dismissal is high. Defendants are typically required to unequivocally establish that their products could not have caused the claimant’s injury.

Contact Information