Asbestos & Mesothelioma Law Blog

A New York appeals court recently upheld a significant plaintiff’s verdict in an asbestos cancer case against equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc., Pacemaker Steel & Piping Co., Millar Steel & Industrial Supply Co. Inc. over allegations that the defendants’ products caused his mesothelioma. The $4 million verdict was a long time in the making for the plaintiff, who had to wait two extra years to finally receive the compensation and justice he deserved for his injuries caused by the defendant’s dangerously designed products.

The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit claimed that the defendant suffered asbestos exposure while working for Chicago-based Chicago Pneumatic and then the New York State Department of Transportation. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that he inhaled asbestos dust from vehicle brakes and mechanical parts manufactured by Caterpillar as well as bags and boards supplied to his employer by Pacemaker.

In 2015, a New York jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding Pacemaker 30% liable for the victim’s injuries and ordered that particular defendant to pay $3 million for the plaintiff’s future pain and suffering. As is common in mesothelioma cancer lawsuits, the defendant appealed the verdict, challenging the jury’s determination of a causal link between the victim’s injuries and asbestos in the products he used.

A three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court recently reversed a Cook County judge’s decision to boot a lawsuit brought by an Alabama family on behalf of their deceased father claiming the victim developed mesothelioma while working in the state. The ruling is a huge victory not only for this particular plaintiff but other asbestos cancer victims attempting to hold wrongdoers accountable and recover compensation for all damages incurred.

The lower court originally made its ruling in December of 2015 in favor of the defendant, Kansas City-based drywall joint compound manufacturer Welco Manufacturing, holding that the plaintiff had not resided long enough in the state to bring the claim. The plaintiffs asserted their deceased relative worked on over 50 job sites over the course of three to four months in 1965, during which time he was exposed to deadly asbestos fibers in the defendant’s drywall compound products.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in in Cook County Circuit Court in 2014 against several defendants including Welco Manufacturing, taking the claim all the way to trial before a jury. Leading up to trial, the plaintiffs settled their lawsuit with all of the named defendants except Welco. During trial, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a clear link between asbestos exposure from the defendant’s product while in Illinois and the victim developing mesothelioma.

The scientific world was recently shocked after six members of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (COP-8) managed to block the addition of chrysotile asbestos from the Convention’s list of hazardous substances. The block came despite a unanimous recommendation from the Convention’s scientific committee to name the substance to the list, which leading scientists in the field called “ridiculous,” according to reports.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), chrysotile asbestos is a known carcinogen linked to serious health conditions including lung, larynx, and ovarian cancers, in particular mesothelioma. While asbestos has been banned in almost all commercial and industrial applications in the United States, many developing nations rely on the relatively cheap and malleable mineral for numerous applications.

Under the rules of the conference, additions to the hazardous substances list can be blocked by only a single voting member. In this case, six of the world’s biggest asbestos exporters, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, India, and Syria, all voted to block the deadly carcinogens naming to the list. The veto was hailed by the International Chrysotile Association, an advocacy group that actively lobbies to shut down chrysotile asbestos.

A St. Louis federal jury recently awarded a Wise County, Virginia woman a $110 million verdict over allegations that talcum powder produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) contained enough asbestos to cause the victim’s ovarian cancer. The lawsuit is just the latest substantial award given to talcum powder cancer victims but one of the first to allege the product contained cancer-causing asbestos.

Common on the heels of a defense-verdict just a few weeks ago, J&J was hit with its fourth multi-million dollar plaintiff’s verdict in the past year and a half and faces an estimated 2,400 additional claims over similar allegations of ovarian cancer caused by talcum powder. Sadly, pharmaceutical giant J&J refuses to compensate victims for all the harm incurred by the company’s failure to disclose links to deadly cancers.

Much of the jury’s award came in the form of punitive damages, a type of compensation awarded to plaintiffs as a means to punish especially egregious behavior by defendants and serve as a warning to other wrongdoers. Jurors heard testimony about internal J&J research from decades ago about causal links between extended use of talcum powder products and increased risk in developing ovarian cancer.

Missouri could be the next state to adopt so-called asbestos claims transparency laws that could have a tremendous impact on the legal rights of victims struck by a mesothelioma diagnosis due to a manufacturer’s negligence. While supporters of the bill tout the legislation’s cost savings and ability to preserve asbestos bankruptcy trusts for future claims, the reality is that the law would force claimants to disclose sensitive information and make it more difficult to recover much needed compensation.

A set of bills, House Bill 333 and Senate Bill 347, are currently working their way through both houses of the Missouri state legislature but face a deadline at the end of May when legislators recess for the year. However, even if the bill fails to pass this legislative term, many legal experts studying the issue believe the Missouri state legislature would take up the issue early in the next session and eventually adopt the provisions.

Like many other similar pieces of legislation in Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, and Utah, the Missouri Asbestos Claims Transparency Law would require cancer victims filing claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts to disclose whether they have filed claims or lawsuits with other parties. The focus on asbestos bankruptcy trusts comes after defense attorneys in a federal asbestos cancer lawsuit alleged that unscrupulous asbestos plaintiffs lawyers somehow manipulated claims, and thereby the system, to enrich themselves.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down its ruling in an asbestos cancer lawsuit concerning the degree to which victims may recover for their medical expenses after insurers and healthcare providers reduce costs. The Alabama judge’s ruling in the case sets a significant precedent for future mesothelioma lawsuits filed against government entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in this suit.

The case centered around a Florence, Alabama woman who developed mesothelioma after coming in contact with asbestos fibers brought home on her husband’s clothes from his job at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant operated by the TVA. For nearly two-decades, the husband cleaned up residue left by insulators and asbestos workers at the nuclear power plant, which left his clothes covered in fine layers of dust.

The plaintiff’s husband died in 1997 from a heart attack, just a short time after developing pleural mesothelioma himself. After developing mesothelioma in 2011, the plaintiff filed her own mesothelioma asbestos cancer lawsuit but succumbed to the disease just two years later, after arduous chemotherapy treatments and surgeries.

Asbestos cancer victims recently won a huge victory after a California Appeals Court upheld a significant, $5.8 million verdict on their behalf after the defendants attempted to skirt responsibility by appealing the case. Fortunately, judges for California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal sided with the three-plaintiffs, all surviving family members whose father developed mesothelioma after years of working with Bendix brake pads manufactured with deadly asbestos fibers.

As is common in many asbestos cancer lawsuits, the defendants asserted many creative defenses as to why they should be immune from liability for the harm caused by the asbestos-tainted products they manufactured. The defendants attempted to create and appellate issue by claiming the verdict was “fatally inconsistent,” the trial court “erroneously refused” to give the defense’s proposed jury instruction on causation, and the trial court “erroneously admitted” prejudicial evidence.

Furthermore, the defense claimed the jury’s $3.5 million award for punitive damages should be tossed aside on the basis the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants acted with the malice and wanton disregard for safety to warrant such an award. Fortunately for the plaintiffs, the Appeals Court balked at the defendant’s claims and upheld the jury’s award, finally giving the victims the compensation they deserved.

The United States Supreme Court is set the hear a slate of upcoming cases including one particular pair of lawsuits that could have an impact on the future of asbestos cancer litigation across the country. Although not directly hearing asbestos mesothelioma claims, the Supreme Court will take up claims centered around which types of cases out-of-state courts may take under consideration when those claims involve multiple defendants.

One claim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., could severely limit out of state plaintiffs’ rights to join claims joined with residents in California, a venue often seen as “plaintiff friendly” due to its robust consumer protection laws. Often times, large numbers of plaintiffs’ product liability cases are handled in multi-district litigation (MDL) that help streamline discovery and motion processes to move the lawsuit along in a more expedient manner.

The second case, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, was brought on behalf of a deceased railroad worker by his surviving wife alleging hazardous chemical exposure caused her husband’s deadly cancer. The plaintiffs in Tyrrell allege injuries occurred in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa but brought their claim in Montana under the Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) despite being out-of-state residents.

A group of military attorneys working at Guantanamo Bay prison recently filed a lawsuit to compel the Department of Defense (DoD) to take steps to protect personnel working at Camp Justice. According to the claim, the military forced the plaintiffs to live and work in areas contaminated with asbestos, a cancer causing mineral once commonly used in many construction and industrial applications.

Following reports that an unusual number of former personnel deployed to the base developed mesothelioma and other deadly cancers, the U.S. Navy allegedly failed to investigate the situation and take corrective steps. Calling the defendant’s response an “unreasonable delay,” the lawsuit claims the DoD failed to take account for other cancer causing substances like mercury and formaldehyde while it put workers at risk for deadly diseases.

In addition to known carcinogens, the plaintiffs allege their accommodations suffered from being covered in mold, rodent droppings, and were generally disgusting. Meanwhile, more senior officers lived and worked in “hotel style” accommodations with a much higher standard of living than counterparts. Despite promises from commanders to examine whether or not the dilapidated accommodations posed health risks, deadlines came and went without any findings.

Dana Cos. LLC, a Texas manufacturer of Victor engine gaskets, and four other defendants in an asbestos cancer lawsuit recently appealed a tremendous verdict in favor of a New York couple that secured $75 million in compensatory damages. The appeal is another unfortunate example of the lengths to which liable parties will go to avoid taking responsibility for their careless actions and compensate victims accordingly.

In this case, the behavior by Dana was especially egregious, and a jury of the plaintiffs’ peers agreed that they clearly intended to send a message to the defendants and other asbestos companies by handing down an award as they did. Throughout the course of the trial, jurors heard testimony from Dana’s own executive about the lengths to which the company went to hide the dangers its asbestos-contaminated products posed to consumers.

According the asbestos cancer lawsuit, the plaintiffs came in contact with asbestos dust from gasket seals manufactured by Dana while working on the husband’s drag racer in the couple’s garage. Over the years of sweeping asbestos dust and washing the husband’s shop clothes, the female plaintiff developed mesothelioma and is currently in hospice care dealing with serious complications from late stage cancer.