Articles Posted in Companies & Asbestos

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

In a recent court ruling, a shipyard’s attempt to claim immunity in a mesothelioma lawsuit was denied, maintaining the company’s accountability for failing to protect workers from asbestos exposure. The case was brought by the plaintiff, N.L., a former employee of Avondale Shipyard, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma decades after working there in the 1970s and 1980s. In his lawsuit, filed in Louisiana state court, he argued that the shipyard had failed to warn him about the dangers of asbestos or take necessary precautions to prevent exposure. The company, which Huntington Ingalls Incorporated now owns, attempted to escape liability by claiming immunity as a federal contractor. However, the court rejected this defense, ruling that Avondale didn’t meet the legal standard for such protection.

In his lawsuit, N.L. names multiple companies, including Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, alleging that his exposure to asbestos dust at the shipyards and outside of work when visiting his coworkers directly contributed to his illness. Avondale moved the case to federal court, arguing that because the ships built at the yard were for the U.S. government, they acted under federal authority and should, therefore, be immune from liability. In response, N.L. filed a petition for summary judgment, challenging the company’s immunity claim.

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

In a recent court ruling, a jury ordered a helicopter company to pay $8.8 million in damages to the family of  B.D. Unfortunately, B.D., a mechanical engineer, passed away from mesothelioma, having been exposed to asbestos primarily through the products he worked with while at Bell Helicopter. In the landmark ruling, the survivors were awarded actual and punitive damages, highlighting how the courts held companies that failed to address the dangers of asbestos exposure accountable.

The case revolved around using asbestos-containing parts, which B.D. was tasked with designing enclosures for heat testing helicopter components. Before his death, B.D. had given testimony during his deposition where he testified that asbestos insulation boards were used for the enclosures., where he was exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers over a long time. Mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer primarily caused by asbestos exposure, often takes decades to manifest after initial contact. B.D.’s family argued that the company’s negligence in addressing the risks of asbestos played a significant role in his illness and death.

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

Mesothelioma lawsuits often involve complex and contentious legal battles as asbestos companies employ aggressive strategies to avoid liability. One common tactic these companies use is moving cases to federal courts, which are often more favorable to businesses, offering immunity and saving them money. At the same time, mesothelioma victims or their survivors continue to suffer. However, these attempts do not always succeed. In a recent case, R.M., a former shipyard worker, successfully fought to have his mesothelioma lawsuit remanded to a local court after the defendant, Hopeman Brothers, tried to transfer the case to federal court.

R.M.’s illness began from his work at the Key Highway Shipyard between 1973 and 1974. During this time, he was exposed to asbestos dust released from Micarta paneling used in ship construction. According to his lawsuit, Hopeman Brothers’ workers cut, handled, and installed the asbestos-containing panels while working on various vessels, including tankers, passenger ships, and the Coast Guard’s Westwind.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as T.W. and his wife as J.W.

In a recent court decision, a judge denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed a widow to proceed with her mesothelioma wrongful death claim. After J.W.’s husband died of malignant mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer, she filed a wrongful death claim against the companies she blames for negligently exposing her husband to the asbestos that caused his illness. Among the many companies named in the lawsuit was Crosby Valve, LLC. This defendant tried to have the case dismissed by filing a motion for summary judgment. However, the judge presiding over the case denied that request.

According to Mrs. J.W.’s lawsuit against Crosby Valve, her husband suffered asbestos exposure in gaskets the company had recommended using together with their valves. The defendant argued that the widow had failed to prove that her late husband had been directly exposed to any asbestos products they had manufactured. Crosby argued that it was not obligated to warn about the dangers of third-party products used in combination with their valves.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma widow, in this case, will be referred to as E.M. and her late husband as R.M.

In a recent legal development, a widow convinced a federal judge to return her lawsuit to local courts, defeating the defendant’s attempt to shift the case to federal jurisdiction. E.M. faced a heartbreaking loss when her husband, R.M., died from mesothelioma. After her loss, she filed a lawsuit against several companies she blames for her husband’s death. However, one defendant, Foster Wheeler (F.W.), tried to shift the case to federal court using the federal officer removal statute. E.M. successfully argued that her case was not connected to Navy vessels, convincing the court to let her case remain in local courts.

Mrs. E.M.’s husband, Mr. R.M., died in August 2023 from mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a harmful mineral that was once widely used in construction, shipbuilding, and manufacturing. This rare and aggressive illness affects the mesothelium, the protective layer surrounding most internal organs. Mrs. E.M. filed a mesothelioma claim against the companies she blames for her husband’s death in November of the same year. In her lawsuit, she indicated three locations where her husband was exposed to asbestos, one of them being Lockheed Shipbuilding Company. One of the defendants responded by asking Mrs. E.M. to share details about her husband’s employment history and worksites. E.M.’s responses did not mention any ships her husband had worked on or if he had worked on vessels or land. Later, she requested details about the company’s work at the Lockheed site.