Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as R.M., and the victim’s husband as T.M.

After a person develops mesothelioma, they or their loved ones can file a mesothelioma claim on their behalf and seek justice and financial compensation from the party or parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. One of the first crucial steps before filing a mesothelioma case is identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure. Often, people are exposed to asbestos from multiple sources. Identifying all defendants is vital to ensuring that victims or their families can recover the maximum compensation. Also, identifying all defendants promotes fairness. It ensures that each party responsible for the asbestos exposure is held accountable. However, after identifying all the parties responsible for the asbestos exposure and filing a claim, it is not uncommon for some defendants to deny liability and request the court to drop them from litigation.

In a recent case, the judge denied a co-defendant’s request to be dropped from litigation. The defendant, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, asked the court to drop them from litigation on the grounds that the company they supplied the asbestos-containing materials to did not need any warning about the dangers of asbestos since it was a “sophisticated user.” The claimant and the other defendant opposed this action, and the judge denied the request.

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

In a recent court decision, Justice Adam Silvera of the New York Supreme Court denied two printing press companies’ motions to dismiss the mesothelioma claims filed against them. The two printing press companies tried to escape liability for the deceased victim’s asbestos exposure between the 1960s and 1980s. Justice Adam Silvera ruled that the victim’s testimony was strong enough to allow the case to proceed.

The victim in this case, Mr. R.D., was a printing press operator from the 1960s to the 1980s. It was during this time that R.D. was exposed to asbestos numerous times. Before passing away, the late mesothelioma victim filed lawsuits against two press companies he accused of being responsible for his asbestos exposure. The two companies are L3Harris Technologies Inc. and Heidelberg USA. Inc. printing presses. In his legal claim, Mr. R.D. said that he developed mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to brakes from Airflex, which L3Harris incorporated in their printing presses. As for the other defendant, Mr. R.D. claimed their presses also contained asbestos. According to the mesothelioma victim, the two companies exposed him to asbestos-contaminated parts in their machines without sufficient warnings of the dangers they posed.

For purposes of this article, the victims in this case will be referred to as T.W. and J.W.

Vermiculite, a naturally occurring mineral with heat-resistant properties, and asbestos, also a naturally occurring mineral, form under the same conditions. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that can cause several fatal illnesses, including mesothelioma. In Libby, Montana, asbestos contaminated the city’s vermiculite deposit, so years of mining this mineral in the city exposed workers and residents to asbestos. Thousands of people got sick because of asbestos exposure, and over the years, victims and families of victims have filed countless legal claims. In April 2024, two Libby residents’ stories will be told by their surviving loved ones who filed a lawsuit against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

T.W. ‘s family and J.W. ‘s family filed a mesothelioma wrongful death claim against the railway company and other defendants after their loved ones died of malignant mesothelioma. According to the two families, the companies named in the lawsuit are strictly liable for their loved one’s death. T.W.’s family and J.W.’s family are seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages for the wrongful deaths of their loved ones.

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

In a recent court decision, a judge ruled the surviving family members of a deceased cruise ship worker have a valid mesothelioma case against Steel Grip, an asbestos gloves manufacturer. The judge hearing the case ruled that the mesothelioma lawsuit the survivors filed against Steel Grip should proceed. After G.P., a cruise worker, developed malignant mesothelioma and died, his surviving loved ones filed a personal injury claim in New York. G.P.’s family believes he developed mesothelioma because of the asbestos-contaminated gloves he wore when working. Steel Grip manufactured the gloves, so the family included Steel Grip in their claim. The defendant tried arguing that they had never done any business in New York. However, upon listening to the evidence presented, the judge ruled that G.P.’s family had a valid case and the case could proceed.

G.P. worked on Italian cruise ships for many years. However, while working on the cruise ships presented the risk of asbestos exposure, his family strongly believes that he developed malignant mesothelioma because of his work gloves. In response to being named as a defendant in the case, the gloves manufacturer argued that the court hearing the case did not have jurisdiction over them since they had never done any business in New York. This first argument was defeated by the fact that G.P.’s cruise ships would stop in New York, and he remembered seeing boxes of gloves manufactured by Steel Grip being loaded onto ships while in New York.

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

In a mesothelioma case, you can recover compensatory damages just like in any other personal injury case. These are damages meant to compensate the plaintiff for the harm suffered. Claimants in mesothelioma claims may also be eligible to recover punitive damages.  However, punitive damages are not awarded in all mesothelioma cases. This is because these damages are meant to punish defendants and not compensate victims or their families. Punitive damages are only awarded when the court determines that the defendant acted particularly egregiously or with the intent to cause harm. Any person found guilty of this kind of conduct pays the plaintiff’s compensatory damages and an additional amount meant to punish them and warn others from acting the same in the future.

Because of the financial burden punitive damages place on defendants, some try to dismiss a claim for such damages. In a recent mesothelioma case, the defendant, a boiler manufacturer, tried dismissing a claim for punitive damages. However, the judge sitting in the case denied the defendant’s petition and allowed the case to continue in its entirety. Burnham LLC, one of the defendants being blamed for the malignant mesothelioma that killed M.F.B. in 2021, could be required to pay the deceased’s punitive damages at the end of the case after the court ruled that the company was unable to prove that punitive damages were not warranted.