Articles Posted in Uncategorized

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.

Berkshire Hathaway, owned by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, recently filed suit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. over claims the auto parts supplier failed to disclose asbestos cancer verdicts and settlements from seven years ago. Berkshire’s lawsuit seeks to absolve itself of reimbursing Goodyear for mesothelioma cancer claims that they claim the defendant never consulted with carrier about.

The suit, filed in federal District Court for the District of Northern Ohio, claims Goodyear informed the underwriter it had exhausted the limits on another insurance policy and may need to make payouts from a Berkshire Hathaway policy. However, Goodyear only recently followed through with a claim under its policy with the plaintiff to make a multi-million dollar payout to asbestos cancer victims.

According to the complaint, the insurance policy was issued by a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Stonewall Insurance, for claims resulting from incidents between July 1976 and July 1977. Berkshire Hathaway wants a declaration from the federal court stating the company is not liable to pay claims resulting from actions from 2008 to 2015.

In a victory for asbestos cancer victims across the state, Idaho lawmakers recently rejected an asbestos lawsuit reform bill aimed at making it more difficult for plaintiffs to proceed with lawsuits to recover badly needed compensation for medical bills and lost wages. The bill was one of many similar pieces of legislation proposed in other states legislatures across the nation. Many of them sponsored by powerful business interest lobbying groups trying to limit liability for defendants accused of failing to warn victims about the deadly risks asbestos exposure posed.

The Idaho House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee rejected the bill at a crucial preliminary stage, preventing the legislation from coming up for a vote in the full Idaho House of Representatives. The measure, sponsored by the influential Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, would require asbestos cancer lawsuit plaintiffs to disclose certain information to defendants and potentially delay proceedings.

Bill Supporters Claim Legislation Would Prevent “Double Dipping” into Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts

A recent report by Klamath Falls, Oregon-based Herald and News sheds light on the plight of one North Ridge couple struggling to cope with the impact of a 12-year-old asbestos contamination clean up in the backyard of the husband and wife’s dream retirement home. According to the article, officials with the clean up effort promised the couple a two-to-three-year time period to complete the project, but the initiative has lingered on for over a decade.

Situated near the former original campus for Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT), the couple’s North Ridge Estates home is part of 171 acres of land contaminated by a land developer’s botched demolition of OIT buildings constructed with asbestos. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried for years to clean up the site on its own but had no success.

Area residents successfully litigated a class action lawsuit against the developer, securing $14 million dollars for victims affected by the defendant’s disregard for public safety. While the couple and this story and many others were compensated for their damages, the amount was not enough to allow the pair to settle in a new location.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad recently signed into law a bill that could end up severely limiting access to compensation trust funds set up by asbestos manufacturers for mesothelioma cancer victims harmed by deadly products. Iowa Democratic lawmakers decried the legislation, which one state senator described as containing “trap doors” for mesothelioma cancer victims trying to recover vital compensation for medical expenses and lost wages.

Dubbed the “Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act,” the law aims to reduce what many call “double dipping” by plaintiffs lawyers filing claims victim’s trust set up by asbestos companies as part of their condition for bankruptcy and then filing a separate lawsuit against other entities. The law now requires plaintiffs to disclose certain information within 90 days of filing a claim in an asbestos cancer bankruptcy trust or be barred from any recovery with the trust.

Furthermore, the act focuses on identification of additional or alternative asbestos trusts by the defendant, legal discovery and use of materials, identification of asbestos trust claims by the plaintiff, valuation of claims, and failure to comply with disclosure requirements. Supporters claim the new law will help ensure the money set aside in these trusts will go to deserving victims and the funds will be available for many years to help victims diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future.

New legislation is working its way through Congress that could end up having an enormous impact on compensation recovery options for mesothelioma cancer victims seeking justice for the asbestos exposure. Recently, the House of Representatives consolidated a pair of tort law reform bills targeting class action lawsuit and asbestos bankruptcy trusts to make it harder for plaintiffs to have their day in court.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (FACT) but the bills stalled in Senate committees after consolidation. Even if both houses of Congress approved the bills, then President Barack Obama indicated he would have vetoed the legislation, which would not have the necessary votes to override the veto and become national law.

However, with a new Republican majority in the House and Senate, as well as the White House, the bills are poised to become law after re-submission and passage in the House of Representatives, again consolidated together. While each bills focuses on distinct areas of tort reform, the provisions of the FACT Act poses the greatest threat to victim recovery following a devastating mesothelioma cancer diagnosis.

An Alameda County, California jury recently awarded $10 million to a couple whose lives were severely impacted by defectively produced asbestos cement pipe manufactured by the defendant, CertainTeed Corporation. The complaint, filed in Alameda Superior Court, alleges that the defendant knew for years about the dangers created by its deadly products but failed to warn consumers about the dangers and even went so far as to market the material as a “safe asbestos.”

According to the complaint, the 65-year-old male plaintiff developed mesothelioma decades after working with the defendant’s defective asbestos as a laborer for a California plumbing company. The male-plaintiff used a circular saw to cut and shape the asbestos cement pipe for use in water drainage and other industrial uses.

In the course of cutting, drilling, and grinding the asbestos cement pipes, the plaintiff worked in an extremely dusty environment which caused him to unknowingly inhale the asbestos particles that ultimately lead to his cancer diagnosis. At trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney presented evidence the defendant knew since 1962 the dangers asbestos dust could pose but did nothing to warn potential users about these risks.