Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

If a plaintiff has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, there is very little question his or her deadly form of cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.  The legal issue is therefore not whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos, but rather when such exposure occurred and what company manufactured the asbestos products to which plaintiff was exposed.

In some cases, the answer to this question is fairly easy such as when the plaintiff worked for a company that mined asbestos minerals or a company that manufactured products from those asbestos minerals. However, these cases are not as common anymore because asbestos is no longer in widespread use. Today, many current plaintiffs were exposed while working in the construction trades or at a factory as these plants were often filled with asbestos-laden products. Continue reading

Several months ago, one brand of children’s makeup was pulled from store shelves across across the country due to asbestos being found in the products.  According to a recent news article from Quartz, lab tests revealed asbestos in another brand of makeup products designed for use by children.

The recent issue came to light when a mother who purchased some of the cosmetics for her daughter and became concerned they may have contained asbestos.  While there did not appear to be any obvious signs of asbestos in the makeup, it was very similar to other makeup involved in a previous asbestos case.  This particular customer had been working with a materials testing laboratory as part of her occupation and decided to have this makeup tested just based upon an alleged hunch. Continue reading

There was a long period during American history when the general public was largely not aware of the dangers of asbestos. That is no longer the case. These days, most people are aware of the dangers of deadly asbestos fibers, though many erroneously assume the material has been banned in the U.S.

In the late 1970s, when the dangers of asbestos became public knowledge, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attempted to ban the mining of asbestos and the importation of raw asbestos and goods that contain measurable amounts of asbestos.  Unfortunately, this law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court a couple of years of after it was enacted on grounds that EPA had overstepped its bounds and did not have the authority to create a law that affects interstate commerce without action from congress.

Today, the asbestos industry isn’t exactly thriving in the U.S., but neither is it dead.

Continue reading

Under state law, there are numerous types of damage one can claim in personal injury or wrongful death civil cases. There are economic damages, such as those for medical expenses, continuing medical care and lost wages. There are also non-economic damages, such as those for pain and suffering and loss of life enjoyment. Beyond that, there are punitive damages (also known as exemplary damages), which are intended to punish a defendant. Punitive damages aren’t available in most Massachusetts personal injury cases, but per M.G.L. c. 229, they may be allowed in wrongful death cases where a corporation committed gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct.

This can be applied in some mesothelioma/ asbestos exposure cases, given that asbestos is a deadly fiber that when breathed into the lungs causes a latent form of cancer that is terminal.

Throughout the last two centuries, companies in the asbestos industry have hidden the dangers of this toxic material from the general public. Unfortunately, it seems some businesses are still allowing workers to be placed at risk for deadly asbestos exposure – and that means they have greater odds of paying punitive damages for their actions. Continue reading

One of the more difficult aspects of litigating a mesothelioma lawsuit in Boston is identifying who is responsible for the harm caused. Beyond that, there may be issues determining which liability insurance company is responsible to pay the claim. Some companies have established trusts to help pay future claims. However, some of these companies don’t exist anymore and tracking down their liability insurance can be tedious.

Even in cases where that information is readily available, insurers are fighting tooth-and-nail to avoid getting involved, looking for any exemption or loophole they can find. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth it, but you will need an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney on your side throughout the process. 

Recently, the New York Supreme Court ruled a liability insurer that provided coverage to contractors and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey must defend those entities against asbestos claims filed by construction workers allegedly exposed to asbestos while building the World Trade Center Complex back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Those workers are only now learning of their illness, and the root cause of it. The insurer fought to extricate itself from these claims, arguing the alleged exposure occurred outside the coverage period. The Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled the insurer did provide coverage to the defendants during the alleged exposure period, and thus the insurer has a duty to defend.

This doesn’t necessarily mean plaintiffs will win their claims, but it does mean they will have the opportunity to do so – and to collect on any verdicts if they win.

Continue reading

When a landowner wants to renovate or demolish a property that is suspected of containing asbestos, as many commercial, residential and industrial buildings in the Greater Boston area do, there is a strict protocol that must be followed.  If this protocol is flouted, it can result in work stoppage orders, administrative fines and criminal charges. More importantly, workers and others in the community are placed at risk for exposure to the deadly asbestos fibers.

Greater Boston Area Asbestos Case Settled

According to a recent news article from Mass Live, a land developer in Worcester, Massachusetts was just fined $100,000 and required to hire a contractor to perform an asbestos audit on eight of the company’s projects as terms of a settlement reached with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Continue reading