mesothelioma litigation

February 26, 2018

Appellate Court Re-Opens Asbestos Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Fertilizer Manufacturer

A new round of mesothelioma lawsuits in Massachusetts and surrounding states against fertilizer manufacturers may have gained new traction with a recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division reviving an asbestos wrongful death lawsuit.

In Brandecker v. E.B. Mill Supply Co. et al, plaintiff filed on behalf of the victim, a former cabinet maker from New Jersey who reportedly used two bags of defendant fertilizer company’s spreader fertilizer twice annually on his personal lawn in New Jersey. He did so from 1967 to 1980. In the lawsuit, filed in 2012, he alleged this exposure contributed to his development of mesothelioma, a latent but deadly cancer caused by exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. He asserted the Turf Builder product manufactured by defendants contained vermiculite ore, a substance that contained asbestos.

He had also alleged his exposure to the fibers in other settings – primarily at work – also contributed to his developing the terminal disease. He entered into confidential settlement agreements with other defendants, but the claim against the fertilizer company was still pending in 2014 when the trial court granted defense motion for summary judgment. (Plaintiff died in 2012 from mesothelioma; his estate representative carried on as plaintiff, adding the wrongful death claim.)

Now, that summary judgment has been reversed, meaning the wrongful death claim can continue. Continue reading

April 13, 2016

Asbestos Lawsuit Punitive Damages Challenged

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In January, an appeals court in California upheld the award of $1.6 million in compensatory damages and nearly $4 million in punitive damages in an asbestos injury lawsuit.

That decision came following an appeal by defendants in Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. following two jury trials – the first that determined liability and compensatory damages and a second limited re-trial that solely weighed the issue of punitive damages after the first could not reach a consensus.

Defendant had argued on appeal to the three-judge panel of the First Appellate District, Division Four that it was improper for the judge to hold a retrial just on the issue of punitive damages. Meanwhile, plaintiff had cross-appealed the fact that the trial court had reduced the punitive damage award from $20 million to just under $4 million. Continue reading

April 11, 2016

Asbestos Tort Reform Bill Passes House, Unlikely to Go Further

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

An asbestos tort reform bill has gained traction in Congress with approval from the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Luckily for those afflicted with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, it’s unlikely to gain enough traction to become law.

Although the measure has a name that implies “fairness,” it is in actuality anything but fair for victims. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2016 was given the green light largely along partisan lines in January. The measure would prohibit class action litigation unless every single member of the class suffered exactly the same injury as the named plaintiff.

Additionally – and pertinent to mesothelioma victims – is that any damage settlement from an asbestos bankruptcy trust (funds set aside by companies bankrupted by asbestos litigation) would need to be made public. Continue reading