Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

For purposes of this article, the claimant in this case will be referred to as S.C. and her late husband as G.C.

In a recent mesothelioma case decision, a district court denied the defendant’s motion to reverse a $5 million punitive damages award. Navy veteran G.C. died after developing malignant mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that is primarily caused by asbestos exposure. The Navy veteran suffered years of asbestos exposure while working as a machinist. After his diagnosis, he filed a product liability claim against John Crane, a gasket company. Unfortunately, he passed away before his case was resolved. After his passing, his widow, S.C., continued with the case as a wrongful death lawsuit. After the trial, the jury ruled in favor of the widow and granted her $9 million in compensatory damages. John Crane was allocated 20% of the damages and another $5 million punitive damages. The defendant tried overturning the decision, but the district court upheld it.

After the trial jury made its ruling, John Crane Co. argued that the claimants had failed to provide enough evidence to show that their products caused Mr. G.C.’s mesothelioma. The judges noted that Arizona law does not require a claimant to prove that the defendant’s actions were the sole factor in producing the injury. According to the law, even if other factors were involved, a defendant can still be held liable if their actions were a “substantial” factor in producing the injury. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the family had presented sufficient evidence of Mr. G.C.’s frequent, direct contact with asbestos-contaminated dust from the defendant’s products.

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

In a recent court decision, the Justice of the Supreme Court of New York County upheld a $9 million verdict against Hennessy Industries, answering a vital legal question: Do manufacturers who make equipment meant to be used on asbestos-contaminated products have a duty to warn of the dangers of malignant mesothelioma? When a New York jury answered yes to this question and rendered a verdict, the defendant appealed the decision. An appellate judge then affirmed the jury’s decision.

This case began when W.M. got diagnosed with mesothelioma and decided to take legal action against the company he blamed for exposing him to asbestos. W.M. filed a personal injury lawsuit against Hennessy Industries’ subsidiary AMMCO, which had manufactured a grinder that he used on asbestos-contaminated brake linings made by BMW. The victim explained that using the grinder had created asbestos-contaminated dust, which he breathed in. This asbestos exposure resulted in W.M. developing mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive type of cancer that forms in the mesothelium, which is the tissue that lines most internal organs.

Asbestos is a dangerous, naturally occurring mineral that was popular many years ago. This mineral was used in many industries because of its attractive qualities. Some of the features that make asbestos commercially desirable include durability, heat resistance, and fireproofing capabilities. Asbestos, when left undisturbed, is harmless. However, when it is damaged or disturbed, its fibers can get into the air, where they can be inhaled, resulting in aggressive and fatal illnesses like mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, abdomen, or heart. Today, the use of asbestos has significantly declined. However, legacy asbestos still poses a significant risk. Legacy asbestos refers to asbestos-containing materials that were used or installed in buildings and structures before the implementation of stricter regulations on asbestos use and handling. These are materials that were used and installed before the health risks of asbestos exposure became widely recognized. Legacy asbestos can be found in older homes, schools, hospitals, and industrial facilities.

While strict rules are in place that govern the handling of legacy asbestos, negligence continues to put many people at risk. In a recent significant legal move, the Attorney General of Illinois, General Kwame Raoul, filed a legal claim against the owners and operators of Lake Behavioral Hospital in Waukegan, Illinois. The hospital’s demolition subcontractors are also named in the legal claim. The claim alleges that the hospital and its subcontractors violated asbestos handling regulations. Specifically, the A.G. claims that the hospital and its subcontractors mishandled asbestos during a demolition project, posing serious health risks to workers and the general public. The lawsuit alleges that the owners and operators of the hospital and its subcontractors exposed people to asbestos fibers and dust, which, when inhaled, can lead to the development of mesothelioma and other serious illnesses. The A.G. is committed to ensuring the defendants are held accountable for putting workers and the public in danger.

This legal action comes after a federal investigation uncovered numerous violations that exposed many people to asbestos, thus putting them in grave danger. The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reported serious breaches by K.L.F. Enterprises. This subcontractor knew the risks that asbestos exposure posed to workers and others.

Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral that was once widely used in several industries, including the construction industry, due to its durability, heat resistance, and other attractive qualities, has been found to pose significant health risks. Asbestos exposure can lead to the development of various illnesses, such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis. While prolonged asbestos exposure is more likely to cause a disease like mesothelioma, the reality is that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Being exposed to asbestos once is enough to cause health issues.

Since the dangers of asbestos became widely known in the United States, laws have been established aimed at mitigating these risks. Rules are in place that address the use, handling, and disposal of asbestos to protect people. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a final rule prohibiting the use of chrysotile asbestos in the United States. Below, we look at some of the laws pertaining to asbestos implemented by the EPA.

Key EPA Asbestos-Related Laws

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

For almost a decade, the estate of a mesothelioma victim, C.B., has been seeking justice to no avail. Finally, the decedent’s family may get the justice they have been fighting for. The companies blamed for the asbestos exposure that led to C.B. developing mesothelioma and finally dying have aggressively fought to have the case dismissed. In a recent decision, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling and permitted the mesothelioma claim to be heard by a jury.

This legal journey began after Mr. C.B.’s surviving family members filed a mesothelioma claim after he died in 2015. C.B.’s family blamed his death on asbestos exposure that occurred during the time C.B. worked as an independent contractor (IC) at an aluminum plant. The family named Alcoa, the aluminum plant owner, and a company that was responsible for installing asbestos-contaminated insulation at the plant as the two defendants.

In March 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) handed down a final rule banning chrysotile asbestos in the United States of America. Chrysotile asbestos is the most common type of asbestos used across the world, and the only form of asbestos that is currently used in or imported into the U.S. Chrysotile asbestos can be found in many products, including sheet gaskets, brakes/linings, brake blocks, and other gaskets. This type of asbestos has been banned in 50 other countries worldwide. Exposure to any form of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, is known to cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and many other aggressive and fatal illnesses. Asbestos exposure is linked to over 40,000 deaths in the United States of America every year.

As expected, the EPA is already facing lawsuits from both chemical industry lobbyists and mesothelioma advocates. Chemical lobbyists argue that the ban is overly restrictive, while mesothelioma advocates say the ban does not go far enough. On one side, the chemical industry claims that their use of asbestos is safe and should continue. The chemical industry argues that their use of asbestos poses no health risks. On the other hand, ADAO, labor unions, and other mesothelioma advocates are pushing for stricter regulations, arguing that the current EPA ban is insufficient to protect the public.

The chemical industry and mesothelioma advocates have filed their cases in different courts. This is a reflection of legal strategies. While the mesothelioma advocates chose to file their petitions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the industry stakeholders decided to file their petitions in the conservative 5^th, 6^th, and 11^th circuit courts.