The family of an asbestos cancer victim may finally find justice after a New York state court ruled in their favor against a tile company they claim is responsible for the death of their loved one. The defendants had filed what is known as a motion for summary judgement to have the case tossed out on evidentiary rules but the judge hearing the case rejected the arguments put forth and will allow the claim to proceed to trial.

In their mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim their father died in April 2017, just six-months after receiving a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis brought on by exposure to asbestos fibers in tiles produced by the defendant, Amtico Tile. The lawsuit alleges the victims spent more than a dozen years renovating homes using the defendant’s floor tiles, which had visible asbestos dust on top of the tiles in the boxes that he opened. The claim states the victim suffered from exposure to asbestos dust raised by cutting, scoring, breaking, and sanding tiles so that they would fit in the rooms where he was installing them.

The defendants attempted to have the case thrown out of court by asserting the plaintiffs had not established a clear connection between exposure to asbestos dust in their products and the terminal health conditions the victim developed. In denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgement, the New York Supreme Court pointed out that the plaintiffs met all the criteria necessary to have the claim proceed under New York laws and eventually be heard in front of a jury if necessary.

An Illinois man recently filed an asbestos related lung cancer lawsuit against a group of manufacturing companies claiming the defendants’ asbestos products are directly responsible for his diagnosis with a terminal form of lung cancer. The asbestos cancer lawsuit names Blackmer Pump Co., Sterling Fluid Systems USA LLC, Aurora Pump Company, and other companies that used asbestos in their products as defendants in the case.

According to the asbestos lung cancer lawsuit, filed in St. Clair County, Illinois Circuit Court, the plaintiff worked various jobs as a painter, waiter, and truck driver during which time he was exposed to deadly asbestos fibers in products manufactured by the defendants. The asbestos cancer lawsuit states the victim developed asbestos related lung cancer in 2017, and seeks damages in excess of $50,000 as well as punitive damages.

The lawsuit claims the plaintiff’s diagnosis came about due to the defendants developing, manufacturing, and marketing asbestos-contaminated products known to be harmful without providing warning to consumers. While asbestos may have been legal to use in manufacturing at one time, companies still knew for decades about the risks associated with their products but did nothing to warn the public.

If you are a firefighter, you know you have a job fraught with risks, but you may not have realized that mesothelioma is one of them. Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive type of cancer associated with asbestos exposure, and firefighters are about twice as likely to develop it than the general population, according to a study completed in 2015 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Because asbestos was included in many building materials manufactured through the 1980s, you can be exposed to it at fires in people’s homes, local businesses or area industrial sites. As the asbestos filled products burn they break down, dispersing asbestos particles in the air and smoke.

In addition to your exposure at fires, you also can be exposed to asbestos at your fire hall from contamination on tools and gear or the construction materials of the hall itself. Some early firefighting gear was even made with asbestos.

Although the effects of asbestos exposure have been known for decades and the substance has been regulated for nearly as long, a recent EPA change and a steam-pipe explosion have again had people asking: What do I do if I’m exposed to asbestos?

Swallowing or inhaling asbestos fibers over an extended period can lead to asbestosis, mesothelioma or lung cancer. The naturally occurring fibers are heat resistant, which is why they were used as insulation and as a fire retardant for many years.

Although its use has been prevented for decades, the substance still exists in many older homes and structures. It is harmless if left in its original state and becomes dangerous only when it enters the air and is breathed or swallowed.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon take up arguments in an asbestos cancer lawsuit that could set an important precedent not only for other mesothelioma lawsuit plaintiffs but other innocent people harmed by the negligence of companies that failed to prevent foreseeable injuries. The case was brought by two surviving relatives of a man who developed mesothelioma while working aboard Navy ships, coming in contact with industrial gaskets made with deadly asbestos fibers as part of his job duties.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, entitled Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, the defendants in the case manufactured equipment for Navy ships that did not contain asbestos themselves, but required replaceable parts manufactured by third parties that used asbestos in the construction. The plaintiffs have asked the court to hold Air and Liquid Systems liable for the victim’s passing because they claim the company knew that its products would need integrated parts manufactured with asbestos gaskets and seals by third parties.

Specifically, the plaintiffs asked the justices hearing the case to apply the “foreseeability” standard of negligence commonly used in maritime injury cases which holds that Air and Liquid Systems could reasonably foresee that aftermarket parts containing deadly chemicals could cause harm. On the other hand, the defense has asked the judges to apply a more simplified standard in tort law, holding that the duty of the party to warn rests with that party that is in the best position to control or avoid the harm, in this case, the gasket maker.

A Maryland appeals court recently upheld justice when it affirmed a multi-million dollar plaintiff’s verdict in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by a steamfitter who claimed he developed mesothelioma from the defendant’s defectively made products. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland sided with the jury’s wisdom when it awarded $7.2 million in compensatory damages for the plaintiff’s medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

The case began years before when the victim and his wife filed their mesothelioma cancer lawsuit in Circuit Court for Baltimore City claiming the husband was exposed to asbestos fibers while working on a construction project at Loch Raven High School in Baltimore, Maryland. The claim went on to assert that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos fibers in insulation products manufactured by Wallace & Gale.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was used for decades in a variety of industrial, commercial, and military capacities for its malleability and heat resistant properties. Asbestos has been heavily regulated by federal law since the mid-1970s when the clear connection between exposure and developing serious health conditions like mesothelioma was finally accepted. Even before federal laws effectively banning the use of asbestos, companies knew fully well of the links between the fibers contained in their products and risk of medical conditions.

A New York state jury recently handed down a substantial $7 million verdict in an asbestos cancer lawsuit filed by a former Georgia police officer against a previous employer he worked for in Western New York during the 1970s. According to reports, the award represents one of the largest verdicts in a mesothelioma cancer lawsuit in that particular part of the state with jurors finding the defendant, Jenkins Bros., guilty of negligence.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Supreme Court of he State of New York, County of Erie, the plaintiff, now living in Atlanta, Georgia as a retired police officer, worked for NY Wire Mills using equipment made by Jenkins Bros. The lawsuit claimed the electrical gaskets made by Jenkins Bros. were manufactured with asbestos and other harmful substances the company knew could cause serious health problems but did not provide any warnings.

By the time the plaintiff started working with the asbestos-laden products manufactured by Jenkins Bros., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had already issued orders about the dangers of asbestos. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the defendant did nothing to warn him or others that the electrical gaskets contained the deadly asbestos, which caused the victim’s mesothelioma cancer diagnosis.

A New Jersey state court recently handed down an important decision in an asbestos cancer lawsuit that holds manufacturers can still be responsible for a person’s mesothelioma diagnosis if that person came in contact with asbestos in aftermarket replacement parts, even if the manufacturer did not make or distribute the items. The ruling overturns a lower court decision in favor of the defendants, which consisted of several asbestos manufacturers attempting to skirt their legal responsibility to warn the public about the dangers their products could pose.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in Middlesex County Superior Court, the plaintiff developed a serious form of cancer, mesothelioma, from years of coming in contact with asbestos-contaminated parts as a commercial plumber and auto repair mechanic. Specifically, the plaintiff worked as a boiler technician from the 1950s until the early 1990s and handled valves, steam traps, and brake drums manufactured by Armstrong International Inc., Burnham LLC, Carrier Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Crown Boiler Co., Ford Motor Co., Johnson Controls Inc., NIBCO Inc., and Oakfabco Inc.

While the parts the plaintiff came in contact with were not manufactured by the named defendants, his lawsuit charged that because the companies knew their products would need routine maintenance and repair with aftermarket parts made with asbestos, that these entities owed a duty to warn. In their decision, the Appellate Judges wrote “We conclude that a duty to warn exists when the manufacturer’s product contains asbestos components, which are integral to the function of the product, and the manufacturer is aware that routine periodic maintenance of the product will require the replacement of the components with other asbestos-containing products.”

A Michigan woman recently filed an asbestos cancer lawsuit against more than two dozen defendants alleging her now deceased husband developed mesothelioma as a result of the companies’ use of deadly carcinogens in products used by the victim. Among the defendants named in the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit are American Optical Corporation, Guard-Line Inc. and Lamons Gasket Company, all accused of negligently designing and manufacturing various products that allegedly caused the victim’s death.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court on behalf of the deceased’s estate, the victim suffered from asbestos exposure while serving as a medic in the Vietnam War. and while operating a BP Amoco gas station in Wood River, Michigan. The lawsuit claims the defendants manufactured the asbestos-contaminated products that caused his terminal illness but did nothing to warn him of the health risks.

The lawsuit states that in October 2016, after many years of using the asbestos-laden products produced by the defendants, the victim received a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis and passed away just one month later. The asbestos cancer lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the victim’s medical bills and pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages to punish the defendants for knowingly producing dangerous products.

A consumer watchdog group recently released a report detailing how several popular brands of various school supplies may contain harmful levels of various toxins, including asbestos, which is known to cause deadly forms of cancer. Specifically, the report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) claims Playskool brand crayons test positive for deadly amounts of asbestos and the group demands the manufacturers pull the products from shelves and send warning letters to parents who may have purchased the supplies for children.

According to the consumer protection report issued by the U.S. PIRG, detailed lab results showed 36-pack Playskool crayons manufactured by Leap Year under license from Hasbro contained asbestos contaminated talc. The group claims the crayons were purchased from a Chicago-area Dollar Tree retail store but the same types of crayons are available from many major retailers and online. Other school supplies tested by U.S. PIRG showed products ranging from markers to water bottles contained disturbing amounts of other known carcinogens.

While talc does not contain asbestos itself, the two are both naturally occurring minerals often found in deposits side by side. Since the 1970s, federal regulations have required talc to be asbestos-free, but if manufacturers and their suppliers do not exercise due care, asbestos can contaminate the talc and put innocent people at risk. Right now, thousands of people across the country have filed lawsuits alleging talc-based products produced by some of the country’s largest corporations caused their mesothelioma cancer diagnosis.

Contact Information