Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

TO DISMISS OR NOT TO DISMISS...THAT IS THE QUESTION.
What happens to an Asbestos or Tobacco case if, before it can reach its conclusion, the injured party passes away from their injury? That is what will be decided in the Florida cases of Joan Ruble v. Rinker Materials Corporation Case No. SC11-1173 and Karen Capone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. Case No. SC11-849. Although one is an asbestos case and the other a tobacco case, the two Miami-Dade County cases involve similar legal issues. Both cases were filed while the plaintiff was living and were subsequently dismissed upon their death. Both petitioners then appealed the order of dismissal and both were affirmed. Now both have been heard by the Supreme Court of Florida and await a final ruling.

All parties seem to agree that Pursuant to section 768.20 F.S.A.:

"When a personal injury to the decedent results in death, no action for the personal injury shall survive, and any such action pending at the time of death shall abate."

Simply stated, this means that if the death results from the personal injury, there is no survival action that may be maintained. Instead it would become a wrongful death action which must be brought on behalf of the estate and all lawful survivors.

As stated by the Florida Supreme Court in the case Safecare Health Corp. v. Rimer, 620 So.2d 161 (Fla.1993):

"A wrongful death action concerns the right of the statutory beneficiaries to recover for loss of support, companionship, lost earnings and other damages. §768.21, Fla. Stat. (1989). In contrast, a personal injury action concerns the right of the injured party to recover for injuries and losses resulting from the injury."

The true issue at hand is, upon the death of the plaintiff in a personal injury case, should the personal representative be substituted for the plaintiff and allowed to amend the complaint to assert a survival claim, a wrongful death claim, or both, or whether the case must be dismissed and the personal representative required to file an entirely new lawsuit.

This decision is an important one because it is such a common occurrence. Despite the fact that the Southern Reporter contains a plethora of cases that demonstrate the normal course of action is to substitute the personal representative of the plaintiff's estate and allow that personal representative to amend the complaint, the issue evidently requires some clarification.

One can only hope that common sense will prevail. Because there is no prejudice to the defendant if the plaintiff is permitted to amend the complaint and because requiring the plaintiff to re-file a complaint would not only result in additional expenses, but would cause unnecessary delays, logic would dictate to permit the amendment.

Red Tape tips the scales of Justice out of balance and may have hastened the death of one asbestos victim. Delay tactics are one of the most popular strategic maneuvers used by asbestos defense attorneys today. Requesting an extension of time from the courts, canceling and rescheduling depositions and dragging their feet when it comes to turning over incriminating documentation are all tactics employed by defense attorneys. Discovery as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, is the ascertainment of that which was previously unknown; the disclosure or coming to light of what was previously hidden; the acquisition of notice or knowledge of given acts or facts. Discovery is an integral part of the judicial process, but it is during this exchange of information where the system and the injured party can be abused. The expeditious implementation of justice is rarely as important to the accused as it is to the person who has suffered a loss and is seeking compensatory action.

John Johnson, 69, was a marine. Since 1961 he worked as a carpenter, mechanic, and plumber. Any of his jobs could've exposed him to the asbestos that likely caused his disease, the Los Angeles Times reports. So he sued 65 companies for compensation. Mr. Johnson collapsed just 40 minutes after a grueling deposition. He lost his battle with mesothelioma the very next day. Despite affidavits from his doctor stating that 12 hours of depositions over a few weeks would be about as much as the 69-year-old's health could stand, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge allowed the companies he was suing a total of 25 hours.

The attorney for the defense actually requested from the court five (5) additional hours from the original twenty that they were granted. They spent this time asking questions that they already had the answers to such as:

• Is the VA Hospital in West, L.A.?


• What are your sons' names?


• What are your sons' ages? Locations? Marital Status? Etc.


• What is your wife's name? Which happened to have been listed in the case caption of not only the complaint, but every subsequent pleading filed in the case; including those filed by the defense themselves.

One cannot help but wonder if these questions were truly relevant to establishing the culpability of the defendant. The defense was already in possession of this information. If in fact it was relevant and if in fact there was some clarification of these facts necessary, could the answers have not been provided in the written format of standard interrogatories? Johnson's lawyer believes companies seek to delay finishing these cases because a victim's recovery will be reduced greatly once they die. Once he died, damages for Johnson's own pain and suffering were lost. His family can now only sue for his medical bills and loss of companionship, according to his lawyer.

Delay tactics can also be used to exhaust the financial resources of the plaintiff, make the recollection of actual events less clear with the passing of time, and/or delay payment of an inevitable judgment or pressure the plaintiff into accepting a lesser but more prompt compensation. What delay tactics always result in is the frustration of the plaintiff, occasionally to such a point that an injured party is willing to drop a suit that has merit and forgo that which he is justly entitled to.

Delay tactics are not only reserved for cases that are actually litigated. Bankrupt defendants also seek refuge within the appeals process or behind mountains of red tape pawned off as procedural requirements as a means to postpone the release and disbursement of assets. For example, there are claimants who have been waiting for compensation from Travelers Insurance Company since 2004.

Continue reading "Delay Tactics Used in Asbestos Cases" »

Should the Asbestos Trust's database of claimant information be an OPEN BOOK??? The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2012 or FACT as it has become known (Officially H.R. 4369) was introduced on April 16, 2012 by Rep. Ben Quayle. This Act proposes to amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the public disclosure by trusts established under section 524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos, and the filing of such reports with the Executive Office for United States Trustees.

In a statement released by Mr. Quayle following the release of FACT he claims:

"by requiring the trusts to operate transparently, Congress can deter further abuse and preserve the trusts' assets for truly needy and sick victims of asbestos exposure".

Those who are already inundated by the red tape of bankruptcy filings say this is just another attempt to discourage and prevent those "sick victims of asbestos exposure" from receiving just compensation in a fair and timely manner. Additionally, the dissemination of submitted information, as well as disclosing settlement amounts, trample on the individuals right to privacy. Moreover claims of abuse and fraud within the bankruptcy trust are unfounded.

There have been some efforts at the state level to bring more transparency to the trusts' operation. At least two states have proposed similar trust reform. Ohio's senate heard testimony in March on a bill already passed by the House of Representatives, while Oklahoma's senate passed a bill on March 14. The Oklahoma bill is currently sitting in the House Judiciary Committee. The House bill; however, is the first step in moving the legislation at the federal level.

This bill or resolution was assigned to a congressional committee on April 17, 2012, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Continue reading "FACT - Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2012" »

In what is the latest in a long and convoluted series of lawsuits revolving around Travelers Insurance Co. and its payment of asbestos settlement claims, United States District Court Judge John Koetle for the Southern District of New York ruled that "it was an error to require Travelers to make the settlement payments" and that "the judgment must be reversed." He wrote that Judge Lifland had incorrectly concluded that settlement lawyers had met all conditions required for Travelers to make payments under the 2004 settlements. This ruling reversed the Bankruptcy Court's January 20, 2011 final judgment on the December 16, 2010 order granting, inter alia, Statutory Direct Action Settlement Counsel's motion to compel payment of the Statutory Direct Action Settlement Agreement. Simply stated, Travelers Insurance Company, who provided general liability coverage and other insurance between 1947 and 1976 to Johns Manville Corp, is no longer required to pay nearly $500 million towards asbestos settlements; specifically, the claims that center on the asbestos products manufactured by now-bankrupt Johns Manville Corp., one of the largest manufacturers of asbestos products in U.S. history.

The current case is Travelers Indemnity Co v. Statutory and Hawaii Direct Action Settlement Counsel et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Nos. 11-01312 and 11-01329. The original case pits Travelers against 26 state-court actions that were bundled into three settlements and mediated by former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo between 2002 and 2004. Those settlements were fought by outside parties, including Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co., which said it didn't want Travelers to be off the hook for future liabilities as a condition of the settlements. In the most recent ruling, the federal judge said that as a result of other court decisions, the Cuomo settlements do not absolve Travelers of future claims from Chubb and other insurers. As a result, Travelers is not required to pay the thousands of people sickened from inhaling microscopic asbestos fibers.

With 500 Million dollars in dispute, it is likely that we have not heard the last of Travelers. But until then, countless victims of asbestos exposure will be denied justice, left without compensation.

Continue reading "Travelers Not Required To Pay $500 Million in Asbestos Cases" »

The The Supreme Court Decision in KURNS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CORSON, DECEASED, ET AL. v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORP. ET AL. handed down on Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 will PUT ON THE BRAKES for railroad workers, who contracted an asbestos related disease, from seeking justice in the courthouse against manufacturers of harmful asbestos containing products. The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit's holding that the federal Locomotive Inspection Act ("LIA") preempts plaintiffs' state tort law claims for design defects and failure to warn.

What is somewhat disconcerting is that the opinion was delivered by Justice Thomas who in the past has defended the state's rights to regulate against any implied federal preemption. This was not seen as keeping in line with Thomas' prior stand on federal vs. state preemption. Justice Kagan wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Justices Breyer and Ginsburg joined.

In spite of the disappointing ruling, railroad workers can still file a lawsuit involving asbestos injury claims under the Federal Employees Liability Act. FELA allows workers to file suit against employers instead of the asbestos manufacturers. Because indemnity claims (claims that the manufacturers are liable) would be state law based, the railroads will possess no indemnity or contribution rights against such entities either. Any attempt by the Railroads to bring the asbestos manufacturers in under the ruling handed down in Ayers will be subject to dismissal, as federally preempted by this decision. Additionally, FELA cases may now take the position that the LIA now provides coverage and rights for locomotives that are "not in use" as previously held by this Court. It has not yet been determined how this will effect claims filed against asbestos manufacturers through the bankruptcy courts.

When a victim of an asbestos related disease such as mesothelioma files a personal injury lawsuit, it will likely allege that the manufacturer of asbestos products knew the dangers associated with the use of the mineral and, without regard for the safety of the end user of the product, continued to manufacture the same. This decision will allow these companies to escape liability in railroad cases.

From the standpoint of workers, this decision exemplifies the value of voting for a President. When casting their ballot, an individual must take into account that one of the most intriguing and important ways in which ordinary workers may be affected by the Office of the President, is through appointments to the Supreme Court.

The Alliance for Justice summarized the situation perfectly:

"By upholding the lower courts' decisions in favor of the corporate defendants, the Supreme Court is preventing injured citizens from holding railroad manufacturers responsible for violating state safety laws and regulations, many of which speak to local safety hazards and provide more stringent protections than those afforded by federal laws. Once again the Corporate Court has used federal preemption to protect corporate interests and prevent states from protecting public safety."

Continue reading "Asbestos Claims For Railroad Workers Thrown Off Track" »

A statute of limitations, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, are Statutes of the federal government and various states setting maximum time periods during which certain actions can be brought or rights enforced. After the time period set out in the applicable statute of limitations has run, no legal action can be brought regardless of whether any cause of action ever existed.

There are statutes of limitations in place that pertain to a living injured party and there are statutes that are applicable in the event the injured party is deceased (the wrongful death statute) BEFORE the statute of limitations expires. If the injured party is deceased before the statute of limitation expires, it is ALWAYS the wrongful death statute that is applicable regardless of whether it lengthens or shortens the time period in which an action can be brought.

Usually, in a personal injury case, the statute date can be easily calculated by simply taking the date of the incident (ie: a motor vehicle accident or slip and fall) and applying the relevant time frame allowable by the statute. Because of the latency period of an asbestos related condition, which can be anywhere between 15 and 50 years, the statute of limitations cannot justly be applied from the date of exposure. In an asbestos case, the statute of limitations must be calculated from the date of diagnosis. The applicable time period must be calculated from the date the injured party is conclusively diagnosed with an asbestos related condition. Asbestosis and Pleural Disease are two non-malignant asbestos related diseases. Laryngeal Cancer, Colon Cancer, Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma are malignancies that may also potentially be asbestos related conditions.

Should you be diagnosed with a non-malignant condition, that statute is to be calculated from that date of diagnosis; however, if you are subsequently diagnosed with an asbestos related malignancy, that statute is to be re-calculated from the date of the malignancy. The 2011 Florida statute 774.206 states as follows:

• Notwithstanding any other law, with respect to any asbestos or silica claim not barred as of the effective date of this act, the limitations period does not begin to run until the exposed person discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, that he or she is physically impaired by an asbestos-related or silica-related condition


• An asbestos or silica claim arising out of a nonmalignant condition shall be a distinct cause of action from an asbestos or silica claim relating to the same exposed person arising out of asbestos-related or silica-related cancer. Damages may not be awarded for fear or risk of cancer in a civil action asserting an asbestos or silica claim.


• A settlement of a nonmalignant asbestos or silica claim concluded after the effective date of this act may not require, as a condition of settlement, the release of any future claim for asbestos-related or silica-related cancer.

Asbestos cases are personal injury claims based on product liability and so the Florida Statue allows four years from the date of diagnosis for the injured party to file a claim / complaint. The wrongful death statute is two years.

Continue reading "Statute of Limitations in an Asbestos Case" »

Accusations of Fraud in the Asbestos bankruptcy courts are being tossed about. But is there really deliberate deception on the part of the Plaintiffs, or is this just another smokescreen created by the defendants to take the focus off their wrong doing and liability and justify diminishing payments?

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) , there are 60 different trusts, created as companies declared bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liabilities to relieve them of future liabilities. Those trusts have paid out $3 billion to settle 461,000 claims in 2010, compared to $3.6 billion in 2009 and $3.3 billion in 2008. In all, $17.5 billion between 1988 and 2000 has been paid out to settle 3.3 million claims. Just because of the sheer volume, the possibility for fraud exists within the system of trusts set up by bankruptcy courts to deal with asbestos personal injury claims. The GAO report said 98% of trust claims go through an "expedited review" process that requires only a claim form with "documented evidence" of exposure such as work history, invoices, or deposition testimony of plaintiff or coworkers plus a medical report

Claims of fraud seem to be based in two parts: One, that the claimants are providing inconsistent exposure history. Two, that the medical profession has seized an opportunity to capitalize on the situation and has provided false information / documentation.

Exposure History: There are claims that conflicting exposure history has been submitted to different trusts. The universe of claimants consists largely of "blue collar" workers; members of unions who filled the work force of industries such as construction, mechanical, railroad, manufacturing and the like. The unions typically sent workers to jobsites for limited amounts of times depending on the work or project to be completed. They worked at multiple jobsites on multiple projects. Working at two different jobsites (or more) during the same time frame is not conflicting information - It is the way it was. The trusts require that exposure and product identification is verified by sworn affidavits, co-worker affidavits, Social Security earnings reports and or actual paycheck stubs. The latency period for an asbestos related disease is between 15 and 50 years which means the documentation must go back commensurately.

Medical Evidence. Prior investigations have shown how a tiny number of physicians have submitted tens of thousands of diagnoses of asbestos-related disease, many of them subsequently found to be incorrect. But the few "bad apples" that we all know will be found in every bunch have been identified, and the information has most definitely been disseminated. CRMC, VERUS LLC, TRUST ONLINE DELAWARE CLAIMS PROCESSING FACILITY are amongst the largest claims processing facilities and currently handle approximately 30 or more of the bankruptcy Trusts open for filing. They each have a similar posting or notice, easily obtained on the internet, listing UNACCEPTABLE DOCTORS AND FACILITIES.*1 Moreover, the consistency or similarities with which they list the doctors supports the fact that not only is there communications within the trusts handled by the same claims processing facility, but there is indeed communication amongst the processing facilities.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a press release in mid October calling the asbestos trust system "broken" because of this lack of transparency. "It is becoming clear that rather than acting to prevent abusive claims, the asbestos trusts are effectively encouraging fraud by inhibiting claims information sharing between the trusts and the tort system," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

The GAO said 65% of trusts reviewed treated claims information as confidential under rules that consider information submitted as part of a legal settlement process as privileged. Defendants and insurers say the trusts should be treated as non-adversarial settlement vehicles. They frequently seek information about claims paid so they can set off any court award by the amount the plaintiff has already obtained elsewhere. Clearly the request to make personal medical information publicly available is motivated by the desire to protect the almighty dollar of big business and insurance companies and has a complete disregard for the personal rights of the victims of asbestos exposure.

There is no disputing the fact that there are unscrupulous individuals looking to capitalize on the misfortune of many. But there are strict guidelines and criterion implemented by the trusts to assure the integrity of their system. In short it is the victims of asbestos exposure who suffer the most; adhering to stricter regulations and burdens of proof and being ultimately rewarded with significantly lower dollar amounts.

Continue reading "Accusations of Fraud in the Asbestos Bankruptcy Courts: Plaintiff's Deception or Defendant's Obfuscation" »

Michigan legislation currently under consideration would allow any company that merged with another prior to the 1972 regulations, and as a result became mired in legal liability over asbestos production, to treat the acquired company as a separate subsidiary. Lawsuits would then be capped at the total value of the subsidiary company, rather than the value of the parent company.

House Bill 4601, from the state of Michigan, is a reintroduction of legislation introduced in the 2007-2008 (SB 591) and 2009-2010 (HB 5167) legislative sessions and would address the situation one successor corporation has experienced since acquiring a company that at one time made, sold, and installed asbestos insulation. The bill would limit the liability of a successor corporation that acquired or merged - before 1972 - with a predecessor corporation that had engaged in asbestos-related activities.

Currently, under the rule of successor liability, a successor corporation (one that acquires or merges with another) can be held liable for any civil actions filed against the business acquired (predecessor corporation), up to the total value of the successor corporation, even if it did nothing to create the liability or the liability had been created before the merger or acquisition.

One company who would benefit from such legislation would be Pennsylvania-based Crown Cork and Seal. Crown did not manufacture any products that contained asbestos. They did acquire another company in 1963, Mundet Cork, which did manufacture products containing asbestos. Mundet Cork's products that contained asbestos include the following;

• Mundet Mineral Wool Finishing Cement


• Mundet Mineral Wool Insulating Cement


• Mundet Cork 85% Magnesia Asbestos Insulation


• Mundet Block Insulation


• Mundet Pipe Covering

This company DID install asbestos and was liable to pay a significant number of claims related to asbestos exposure - unless they convinced state lawmakers around the country to pick up the tab. Crown has paid out more than $700 million in asbestos claims and seen its bond rating reduced to junk status. The company that in 1998 employed 12,000 nationwide now has just 4,000 workers remaining.

Backers of the bill pointed to Halliburton, the energy company famously run by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, to make their case. In the 1990s, Halliburton acquired a company subject to lawsuits as a result of asbestos claims, but Halliburton kept its acquisition -- Dresser Industries -- as a separate subsidiary, ensuring that when Dresser went into bankruptcy, it didn't affect its parent company's books. The only people to actually speak in favor of this bill in the House Judiciary Committee were the company's General Counsel and Rep. Joe Haveman (R-Holland), who sponsored the bill and said it shows that Michigan is "open for business."

The bill was not voted on in the House Judiciary Committee and it is probable that the Committee Chair will hear more testimony in the weeks to come.

Similar legislation has passed in 15 other states.

What does this type of legislation mean to asbestos victims? Significantly less funds available to compensate those stricken with Mesothelioma, Asbestos related Lung Cancer and other asbestos related diseases. The is a limited about of funds available to compensate the numerous victims of asbestos exposure. Taking away or reducing the responsibility of a parent company reduces the drastically diminishing pool of funds available. In the case of Bill 4601, not only does it create a special exemption for one company, but it would force individuals (in this case, Michigan residents) suffering from asbestos poisoning who don't have sufficient means or insurance into the state's worker compensation system, Medicaid or Medicare, forcing Michigan taxpayers to assume all the risks for one out-of-state corporation failing to do sufficient research before approving a merger.

Asbestos victims are speaking out. The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators made a public appeal for justice in a press release by President James E. Grogan dated November 30, 2011 declaring their opposition to the bill. The question remains...Can their voices be heard over the cacophony created by big business, insurance companies and the like trying only to protect their own interests?

Continue reading "Asbestos Lawsuits: Liability of Parent and Subsidiary Companies" »

There are two major types of asbestos lawsuits filed: Premises liability asbestos lawsuits, and products liability asbestos lawsuits.

A products liability asbestos lawsuit is filed against a person or company who made the product that exposed a person to asbestos. For example, if a plaintiff in a mesothelioma lawsuit was a bricklayer for a construction company and often worked with a cement that was made with asbestos in it, the case against the manufacturer of the asbestos containing cement would be a products liability case.

In civil court lawsuits for damages, legal responsibility for injuries caused by asbestos exposure is sometimes determined under the law of product liability. A product liability case arises when someone uses, or is exposed to, a dangerous product that injures them. Liability is usually based on one of three theories:

• breach of warranty


• negligence


• strict liability

Breach of Warranty: There are two types of warranties: 1) implied warranties; and 2) express warranties. In an asbestos exposure case, you might be able to recover for a breach of an implied warranty under your state's implied warranty statutes, which are usually found in a state's commercial code. Implied warranties accompany the sale and use of many types of products, including those containing asbestos. To all intents and purposes, implied warranties present that a product will be safe and fit for its premeditated purpose. Liability for a breach of express warranty may exist if the supplier or seller of a product containing asbestos made a claim about the product that ultimately caused someone to buy or use the product, and that claim later turned out to be false. For example, if a supplier claims that using a particular asbestos product is safe, but the product is in fact unreasonably dangerous, the supplier may be liable to a person who relied on the supplier's statements and was injured by the product.

Negligence: This means that the defendant knew of the physical hazards involved in working with the substance, yet failed to issue adequate warnings to or provide suitable protection for those workers expected to handle the material in the course of their assigned tasks. In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a legal standard required and that the defendant owed a duty of protection to the defendant. Fortunately, in cases where a supplier's negligent conduct may be difficult to prove, courts have developed an alternative theory of liability to allow plaintiffs to recover. That alternative theory is called strict product liability.

Strict Liability: Like negligence, the strict product liability theory requires the plaintiff to prove four elements: (1) a strict duty to supply a safe product; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) causation; and, (4) damages. However, strict liability differs from negligence in two key ways. First, under a strict liability theory, the existence of a duty is shown when there is a commercial supplier that manufactures or retails the product -- not just a casual seller. Second, under a strict liability theory, the plaintiff does not need to show that the breach of duty is the result of any negligent action. The mere fact that the product was dangerous or defective is enough to establish a breach of the supplier's duty. Of the four elements in negligence and strict product liability asbestos cases, causation can often be the most difficult to prove.

Causation or proof of fault in a mesothelioma lawsuit requires that the plaintiff prove that exposure to asbestos caused his or her illness and that the defendant both was aware, or should have been aware, of the existence of an asbestos-related hazard and failed to implement protective measures. The plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a 'legal cause' of his injury. One major issue in asbestos litigation is exposure to the defendant's product. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue. If there has been no significant exposure, there is no causation. Plaintiffs may prove causation in an asbestos case by demonstrating that the plaintiff's or decedent's exposure to defendant's asbestos-containing product in reasonable medical probability was a substantial factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer. In most lawsuits, defense attorneys will attempt to present scientific reports and studies to try to dispute that asbestos can cause the injury alleged. The latency period for an asbestos-related disease is anywhere from ten (10) to fifty (50) years. This results in a substantial amount of time between exposure to asbestos and the appearance of an injury. Defendants may use that passage of time to argue the injury was caused by exposure to another toxic substance, or a product manufactured by someone else. Therefore, in order to prove causation, the plaintiff must show that the asbestos-containing product can cause the injury claimed, that the plaintiff was exposed to the asbestos in a quantity large enough to cause the injury claimed, and that the plaintiff was not exposed to some other toxic substance or product that could have caused the injury. Additionally, the plaintiff is forced to remember details of work history and exposure from as much as fifty (50) years ago.

Continue reading "Product Liability in Asbestos Cases" »

In 2005, a legislative effort to control, limit, or end asbestos litigation the addition of new legislation, Chapter 2005 - 274 Bill No. 1019 required proof of physical impairment when filing an asbestos related claim. In addition to imposing significant limitations regarding damages and liability stringent medical requirements demonstrating impairment had to be met before anyone could bring an action for damages from exposure to asbestos. The law included detailed criteria for proving such physical impairment, including criteria dealing with chest x-rays and lung capacity. Plaintiffs' asbestosis claims were dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of the Act. The Act was then challenged on the grounds that by this legislation the government of Florida has taken from them a personal right in a cause of action for money damages arising from the exposure to asbestos even if the injury has not yet become malignant or caused any physical impairment.

Asbestos Plaintiff's attorneys, especially those who lobbied hard against the passage of the legislation, challenged its constitutionality immediately. The long awaited decision on many of those challenges was at last issued on July 8th, 2011 when The Fourth District held that the Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act (the Act) is unconstitutional as applied to the Appellees; that the Act could not be constitutionally applied to eliminate any existing vested property rights in the asbestos-related actions that were pending when the Act became effective. American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak, Nos. 08-1616, 08-1640, 08-1617, & 08-1639

It remains to be seen exactly what effect this will have on asbestos litigation. Some say that it will "open the flood gates" to a rash of new complaints, however the issue of statute of limitations*1 must be address. The Statute of Limitations in Florida is four (4) years. Wrongful death cases are limited to two (2). Because the potential claimants all must have been diagnosed prior to 2005, this could potential exempt a large portion of claimants/plaintiffs.

Continue reading "Florida Supreme Court Found That The Law Requiring Plaintiffs To Show "Physical impairment'' Before They Could Pursue Asbestos-Related Lawsuits Violates Constitutional Due-Process Rights" »

When Filing an Asbestos Claim, There are two main components: Medical Proof of an Asbestos Related Condition and Proof of Exposure. The diagnosis of an Asbestos related disease must be supported by documentation that the individual suffering with the disease was in fact in an environment that he / she would have been exposed to Asbestos.

The most common manner of exposure is occupational. Defendants typically require a minimum of five (5) years of Significant Occupational Exposure when filing a claim. A wide variety of industries and occupations made use of products that contained this economical, easily obtained, heat and chemical resistant mineral. The occupations within the below listed industries that worked directly with asbestos containing products are numerous. Additionally workers who did not necessarily handle asbestos or asbestos containing products directly were also exposed. When asbestos is disturbed, it becomes air born, can potentially travel hundreds of feet and can be inhaled by anyone in that vicinity. Compounding this problem is the fact that all of these workers typically went home to family with clothes covered in asbestos. Children hugged their parents, wives and mothers laundered their husbands and sons asbestos laden clothing. These individuals too are vulnerable to the effects of asbestos exposure through secondary exposure.

Industries that typically use asbestos include:

• Construction
• Utilities
• Steel / iron mill
• Railroad
• Foundries
• Manufacturing
• Aviation
• Automotive / Friction
• Petroleum
• Chemical
• Textile
• Shipyard
• Military

Because it was cheap to obtain and nearly impossible to ignite or destroy asbestos was used almost anywhere that heat or friction was in issue, anywhere that fireproofing was desired. Asbestos was used in the manufacturing of thousands of products.

Several of the more widely used asbestos containing products are as follows:

• brake pads


• ceiling tiles


• cement


• cloth


• firebrick


• gaskets


• gloves


• heat guards


• Insulation products


• joint compound


• paint


• paper


• plaster


• Sheetrock


• spark shields


• Welding rods


• wire


• yarn

RELEVANT YEARS OF EXPOSURE
Manufacturers knew or should have known of the dangers associated with the use of their product as early as the 1930s. Warning labels, use guidelines and handling procedures and appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) *1 were not created or implemented until the 1970s. The manufacturers failure to warn the users of the potential hazards and correct handling procedures left millions vulnerable to the effects of asbestos exposure and the companies themselves LIABLE for the damage and suffering that resulted from the use of their product.

Continue reading "Exposure Requirements for Filing an Asbestos Related Claim" »

Despite the ever increasing number of asbestos manufacturers who have filed for bankruptcy and the dwindling funds available to pay asbestos related claims, asbestos manufacturers are being found liable and continue to be ordered to pay expenses and damages to their victims.

On Wednesday May 11th, 2011 a jury from Mississippi's Smith County awarded Thomas Brown Jr. the biggest asbestos verdict in U.S. history. The jury decided that Union Carbide and Chevron Phillips Chemical were both liable for designing a defective product and for failing to warn their employees. They were ordered to pay $322 million by the jury to cover medical expenses, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.
(Thomas Brown Jr. v. Phillips 66, et al., No. N/A, Miss. Cir., Smith Co.).

In April of 2011, Charles Gillenwater, a 59-year-old pipe fitter, was awarded $90 million by a jury in Bloomington, Ill. The plaintiff accused 4 companies for causing him to contract mesothelioma, a deadly lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos. He was awarded compensatory damages of $9.6 million against Honeywell International Inc., Pneumo Abex, Owens-Illinois Inc. and John Crane Inc; punitive damages of $20 million against Honeywell, Peneumo Abex and $40 million against Owens-Illinois.
(Charles Gillenwater v. Honeywell International Inc., et al., No. 10 L 117, Ill. Cir., McLean Co.)

Last March, John Casey, a retired plumber in California was awarded $41 million by a jury in a mesothelioma lawsuit against Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and FDCC California. The jury in San Francisco decided that the company was negligent and failed to warn its employees that exposure to asbestos dust and fibers could lead to mesothelioma and could be fatal. They awarded him around $20 million in economic, non-economic, and loss of consortium damages. In early May they awarded Mr. Casey another $20 million in putative damages in one of the largest asbestos settlements this year. This was after deciding that Kaiser Gypsum acted with malice, one prerequisite for awarding putative damages.
(John Casey, et al. v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-275517)

In January, 2011, after a six year bitter dispute, a federal judge has ordered the Travelers insurance group to immediately pay $500 million to victims of asbestos exposure, concluding that a dispute over the enormous settlement "has gone on for too long, especially for those asbestos victims who have yet to be fully compensated".

Continue reading "Asbestos Manufacturers Are Still Being Found Liable and Ordered to Pay" »

If you have been diagnosed with or think you might have an asbestos related condition such as Asbestosis, Lung Cancer or Mesothelioma, you may have the right to collect. The reality of asbestos litigation; however, is that there are very few defendants remaining that have the financial resources to pay claims. Since the first major bankruptcy filing by Johns-Manville Corp., in 1982, nearly 70 companies that either made or installed asbestos insulation or that sold or used products containing asbestos have filed for bankruptcy. For that reason, more and more victims of asbestos exposure must seek compensation by filing claims within the bankruptcy courts. Since the early 1980's, companies responsible for inflicting asbestos-related illness on hundreds of thousands of Americans have sought to limit or escape legal liability through filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. By filing Chapter 11, a company is given immediate immunity from lawsuits filed by the victims of its asbestos products. The company is then given many years to satisfy a number of legal requirements while the victims, many of whom do not have the luxury of time, are forced to wait. Upon meeting the bankruptcy court's requirements, the company is granted permanent immunity from lawsuits filed by all past and future victims, and is able to emerge from bankruptcy and continue doing business as usual. Simply stated, you cannot sue a bankrupt company.

Several common misconceptions are as follows:

• One, that if I wait to see if the company reorganizes and becomes profitable again, I may be entitled to a larger settlement. Agreeing to a settlement now may prevent me from receiving a larger settlement later from a reorganized company.


• Secondly, that because I can go to the store and find product manufactured by the same defendant I am filing a claim against, this companies current profitability should be reflected in the amount of the settlement I should agree to now. Waiting to file a claim or not accepting a current settlement offer may allow for future claims at a larger value.


• Finally, if I settle now and my condition worsens, I may give up my right for a larger settlement.

The facts are as follows: Once a company files for Bankruptcy, assets are seized and the determination of the ability to pay is based on those funds. Any profits made by a reorganized company are NOT factored into the original company's ability to pay and moreover are protected from such claims. Companies can reorganize and continue to do business, selling their product, and cannot be held liable for the actions of the original company. The trend of asbestos bankruptcies is that as time passes and more asbestos claims are filed, the company's ability to pay diminishes and the percent of the *"Liquidated claim value" that is paid is reduced, thus paying out a lesser amount to the claimant or injured party. And finally, sufferers of a non-malignant asbestos condition are often in fear that by settling now, if their condition develops into a malignancy, they will not be able to pursue an additional settlement for a malignant asbestos related disease. Bankruptcy trust offer what is known as a limited release for non-malignant claimants. Although this release precludes the claimant from filing again for the same non-malignant condition, should the claimant develop an asbestos related malignant condition, he/she may file a second injury claim and receive additional compensation.

RESOURCES:
SEC - Rules and Practices

Continue reading "Reasons You Should File Your Asbestos Claim Now" »