For purposes of this article, the claimants in this case will be referred to as S.S. and B.S.
In a recent court decision, a Rhode Island judge ruled in favor of two plaintiffs, S.S. and B.S., a couple pursuing justice against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in a mesothelioma lawsuit. S.S., a mesothelioma patient, and B.S., her husband, filed the lawsuit against more than 40 defendants, including two subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, who they blame for negligently exposing her to asbestos through their talc products. J&J and the two subsidiaries petitioned the court to substitute two other subsidiaries in their place.
The Substitution Dispute
S.S. and B.S. filed a lawsuit citing exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products as the cause of S.S.’s mesothelioma. Among the many defendants, the two named in their lawsuit were LLT and Old Holdco, two J&J subsidiaries. Johnson & Johnson is facing many asbestos-related lawsuits, so to shift its legal focus, the company tried to substitute two other subsidiaries. J&J asked the court to assign its liabilities to Pecos River Talc LLC and a related entity instead.
S.S. and her husband argued that LLT and Old Holdco should be held liable. According to the two, Johnson & Johnson’s restructuring was a deliberate strategy to hinder accountability. The claimants argued that the company aimed to protect the initially named subsidiaries from liability instead of facilitating a fair resolution. J&J has disputed this characterization of its corporate restructuring in this and other litigation. S.S. and B.S. asserted that claimants have the right to decide which entities to hold accountable.
How the Court Ruled
After reviewing the case, a judge of the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Judge P.J. Gibney, sided with S.S. and B.S. The judge agreed that claimants have the right to direct their lawsuits against the entities they deem responsible. Judge Gibney noted that S.S. and B.S. are the masters of their complaint and thus can decide the defendants in their case.
Additionally, the judge found that Johnson & Johnson’s motion had failed to cite a specific rule from the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure that justified their request. Judge Gibney pointed to Rule 25(c), which is designed to ensure that litigation and potential judgments are not affected by transfers of responsibility among companies. This rule is not meant to allow a defendant to escape liability by claiming that another entity should be sued instead.
This decision sends a message to companies facing allegations of asbestos exposure and emphasizes that claimants have the right to file lawsuits against the companies they believe are responsible for their exposure. It is one of several rulings across different jurisdictions addressing how corporate restructuring affects asbestos litigation, and outcomes can vary by state and by the specific facts of each case.
If you’re navigating a similar situation, our page on the differences between mesothelioma and asbestosis can help you better understand your diagnosis as your case moves forward.
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 you and your family live a more comfortable life.
Frequently Asked Questions About This Ruling
Can a company substitute a different subsidiary as the defendant in a lawsuit?
Courts generally recognize that claimants have the right to choose which entities to sue. As this Rhode Island ruling illustrates, a defendant generally cannot unilaterally substitute a different subsidiary in its place absent a specific procedural rule supporting that request.
What is Rule 25(c) and why did it matter in this case?
Rule 25(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure is designed to prevent litigation outcomes from being disrupted by transfers of responsibility between companies, not to let a defendant redirect liability to a different entity.
Does this ruling apply outside of Rhode Island?
This decision applies directly within Rhode Island’s court system. Other states may handle similar corporate restructuring disputes differently, so it’s worth discussing the specifics of your jurisdiction with an attorney.
Why are claimants’ names abbreviated in this article?
We use initials to discuss real court proceedings while respecting the privacy of the individuals involved.
What should I do if a company I’m suing tries to change which subsidiary is named?
Speak with your attorney promptly, since this type of motion can affect your case timeline and requires a legal response grounded in your jurisdiction’s specific procedural rules.
