Asbestos & Mesothelioma Law Blog
For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this article will be referred to as A.M.B. and her ex-husband, Mr. A.B.
In a recent court decision, a judge denied an asbestos company’s motion to dismiss the mesothelioma lawsuit and allowed the case to proceed. The tragic death of the mesothelioma victim, A.M.B., that occurred due to second-hand asbestos exposure draws attention to the dangers of this type of exposure. Second-hand asbestos exposure occurs when someone brings asbestos fibers home on clothing or other personal items, putting their family at risk. This indirect exposure can be just as dangerous as direct exposure.
After years of unknowingly inhaling asbestos fibers when washing her ex-husband’s clothing, A.M.B. developed malignant mesothelioma. Mr. A.B. had used DAP Inc.’s products in his home and hardware business. A.M.B.’s family filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that their products were responsible for her illness. The company tried to dismiss the case by arguing that the plaintiffs had not established a link between A.M.B.’s illness and their products. The court denied the defendant’s motion.
Mr. A.B. testified that he had worked with the defendant’s products for approximately 24 years, from 1976 to 2000. The caulking and glazing products he worked with contained asbestos, the dangerous mineral that causes mesothelioma when inhaled or ingested. Asbestos fibers would settle on Mr. A.B.’s clothes, and Mrs. B, while washing the clothes, would unknowingly inhale these dangerous particles.
DAP tried to have the case dismissed by arguing that the lawsuit had not shown that there was a link between its products and Mrs. B’s illness. They also argued that the claim had failed to show that the products Mr. A.B. had used were asbestos-contaminated. The estate of A.M.B. argued that the defendant had not been able to establish that their products could not have caused her mesothelioma and death.
To prove that it was not liable for A.M.B.s illness, DAP provided affidavits to establish that by 1978, the company had stopped using asbestos. However, the court found that this defense was flawed. The court determined that while DAP might have removed asbestos from its products by 1978, this did not guarantee that the products Mr. A.B. had used did not contain asbestos. Moreover, the affidavits revealed that some of DAP’s products continued to contain the toxic material.
Both sides presented conflicting expert opinions on whether or not the defendant’s products caused A.M.B.’s illness. DAP presented an opinion from an expert witness indicating that it was not likely that A.M.B. had suffered enough exposure from their products to have led to her developing mesothelioma. On the other hand, A.M.B.’s estate provided an expert report that linked the asbestos exposure from Mr. A.B.’s use of DAP products to the cause of Mrs. B’s mesothelioma. This expert found that Mr. A.B.’s use of DAP products, combined with the processes of applying, chiseling, removing, and sanding the caulking, cumulatively contributed to Mrs. B’s mesothelioma. In the end, the court allowed the case to continue.
Nationwide Mesothelioma Lawyers
If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced nationwide mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment and help you and your family live a more comfortable life.