Articles Posted in Companies & Asbestos

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for iStock-92402940.jpgA drywall manufacturing division of Georgia-Pacific recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy over thousands of asbestos cancer claims against the company, owned by Koch Industries since 2005. Georgia-Pacific’s Bestwall Unit is currently the subject of tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging the company knowingly manufactured drywall products with asbestos but did nothing to inform users of the possible dangers of developing serious health conditions, including mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of lung cancer.

Georgia-Pacific manufactured “mud,” a joint compound used in construction to seal pieces of drywall together or fill in cracks, which contained chrysotile asbestos until 1977, one of the most common forms of the flaky white mineral. While the company claims its total production amounted to only a small fraction of products made with asbestos, it was nonetheless one of the most common types of drywall mud used in past decades, resulting in thousands of cases of exposure.

Asbestos was once commonly used in a variety of industrial and commercial applications for decades by many manufacturers. Although federal regulators did not restrict the use of asbestos until the mid 1970’s, the manufacturers were well aware of the potential hazards of inhaling asbestos fibers. Unfortunately, manufacturers continued to use asbestos in their products and did nothing to warn consumers about the risks.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for iStock-526953477.jpgAlmost two decades after environmental regulators discovered serious asbestos contamination at a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, lawsuits related to asbestos exposure continue to work their way through the courts. A federal judge is set to decide whether a dozen or so cases will remain in Montana state court or be transferred to federal court and decide whether or not a whole host of defendants are liable for the plaintiffs’ serious medical conditions related to asbestos exposure near the mine.

Hundreds of cases against defendants BNSF Railroad Company, the state of Montana and other entities allege the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiffs’ medical conditions, including mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer commonly affecting the lungs. In August, about one dozen other cases were transferred from Cascade County District Court to U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in Great Falls.

The vermiculite mine’s original owner, W.R. Grace & Co., filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2011 and formed an asbestos bankruptcy trust before splitting into two separate companies in 2015. The trust established by W.R. Grace compensates victims who were harmed by the asbestos in the vermiculite mine it operated and allows the company to settle its debts and restructure. According to reports, the trust is valued at $4 billion and could end up compensating thousands of possible claimants harmed by the company’s activities at the mine.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for talcumpowderasbestoscontamination.jpgCosmetics and personal hygiene products company Johnson & Johnson has made massive headlines in recent months over substantial jury verdicts handed down against the company over allegations that it knew for years about the possible causal link between using talcum powder and developing ovarian cancer. Now, J&J could be open to even more liability after an internal company memo surfaced in another trial that shows it also knew its talcum powder products could also be contaminated with asbestos, a flaky white mineral known to cause the deadly lung cancer mesothelioma.

Attorneys representing more than 50 clients in a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson recently unveiled internal company memos suggesting that the defendant was aware as far back as the 1970s that some of its talcum powder from a pair of mines was contaminated with asbestos. Those contaminated sources allegedly came from mines in Vermont and Italy and appear to directly contradict the company’s claims that its talc-based products have been asbestos-free since the federal government declared asbestos a dangerous carcinogen many decades ago.

Those memos, dated to 1973, state that Johnson & Johnson found two different types of asbestos in its talcum powder, prompting one company official to suggest switching its Baby Powder ingredients to corn starch instead. Furthermore, documents obtained by the plaintiffs show that the defendant went as far as to rewrite product booklets to omit the fact talcum powder from the Italian mine contained the cancer-causing mineral.

Thumbnail image for AppealsCourt.jpgThe Florida Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the appeal of a plaintiff whose $8 million verdict against a tobacco company was thrown out by a state Appeals Court and subsequently denied a review by a larger panel of judges. The victim’s lawsuit claimed that R.J. Reynolds tobacco company produced a defective product which ultimately contributed to the plaintiff developing mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of lung cancer associated with exposure to asbestos.

The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit alleged that the victim’s cancer developed through exposure to asbestos-laden filters on Kent cigarettes the plaintiff smoked in the 1950s as well as exposure to asbestos in gaskets produced by Crane Co. A jury initially awarded the plaintiff $8 million for his injuries, including pain and suffering, as compensation for the defendants producing a product which they knew contained harmful substances but did nothing to warn consumers about.

However, the defendants appealed the verdict on the grounds that the trial court improperly admitted an expert witness for the plaintiffs who specialized in occupational and environmental medicine. The expert asserted at trial that the type of chrysotile asbestos used in the cigarette filters and gaskets directly contributed to the victim’s injuries. Another expert witness for the plaintiff also testified as to the link between the victim’s diagnosis and exposure to the defective products developed and sold by the defendants.

Contact Information