Asbestos Cases
A person diagnosed with an asbestos related disease like mesothelioma may wonder, "Do I have a case?" or "What's my case worth?" Early on it can be difficult or impossible to know what an Asbestos exposure injury case may be worth. All asbestos and mesothelioma cases are different and no two cases turn out exactly the same. There are too many factors that affect the value of an asbestos case to accurately make any predictions about the outcome early in the process. Litigation of an asbestos exposure case can take years. Over that time factors that can affect the value can change. Asbestos ase dynamics can change greatly over the course of litigation. The testimony of witnesses and the information found during discovery and investigation will affect the value and prospects for a successful recovery in an asbestos case.
Even where a "typical" asbestos lawsuit progresses as expected and itself does not change significantly, the law can change. A case may progress under a certain legal framework, only to have a new case decision come down or a new statute or court rule passed that dramatically changes the prospects for a successful outcome. The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to know what an asbestos case is worth early on.
Generally after an asbestos case goes through the discovery process, it will be listed for trial. If the case survives defense motions for summary judgment or dismissal, or does not settle, it will be tried and ultimately decided by a jury, or in the case of a bench trial, by a judge. In that case, the answer to "what's my case worth?" will be "whatever the jury says it is worth."
Although it is difficult or impossible to state with certainty what any particular asbestos case is worth before a judge or jury makes that decision, sometimes we can get an idea of trends and ranges of value by considering what other similar cases may have settled for or been awarded at trial. Below is a list of asbestos jury verdicts and settlements. Keep in mind these are listed for informational purposes only. As stated, no two cases are exactly alike and a past jury or court verdict or settlement is no guarantee the same thing will happen in another case. Indeed, many cases are litigated for years; undergo an extensive discovery process, only for a jury to award the injured person nothing in the end.
Wife of Exxon Mobil Refinery Worker Suffers from Peritoneal Mesothelioma from Washing His Work Clothes
In 2002, plaintiff, a 52 year old woman, was diagnosed with peritonealmesothelioma. She was exposed to asbestos as a result of take-home asbestos fibers that were brought home on the work clothes of her husband. He had worked for decades at the Exxon Bayway Refinery in Linden, New Jersey. Plaintiff's exposure to the carcinogenic fibers came as a result of washing her husband's contaminated work clothes. In addition, the plaintiff also worked at the Exxon Bayway Refinery from 1975 to 1985. Plaintiffs sued ExxonMobil Corporation for her asbestos exposure injuries.
In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that ExxonMobil breached its duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos, and that that failure to warn was the proximate cause of her mesothelioma. Plaintiff's husband filed a derivative claim for loss of consortium.
Plaintiff battled through two abdominal surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation in an effort to fight her mesothelioma. Her treating physician performed surgery to debulk her tumor. The plaintiff's omentum was pulled away to permit the peritoneal tumor to be scraped out where possible. She underwent multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation treatment and a second surgery to gauge her treatment progress.
Plaintiff was unable to continue working as a librarian because of the illness. After leaving her job, she helped other mesothelioma victims through her work with the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, a national organization dedicated to helping those afflicted with mesothelioma and seeking to cure the fatal disease.
In November 2007, a Middlesex County Superior Court jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs after trial in the amount of $500,000. That jury agreed with plaintiffs claim that she suffers from asbestos-related peritoneal mesothelioma, and that ExxonMobil breached its duty in failing to protect or warn her and her husband about its dangers.
Because the 2007 jury only returned a verdict for pain and suffering, and awarded no recovery for the loss of consortium claim, the trial Judge granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the issue of damages only. According to current medical statistics, ninety-nine percent of mesothelioma victims die an accelerated death. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that Plaintiff lives with the fear that her symptoms will return, and she knows that she could die at any time. ExxonMobil argued that Plaintiff could live for a long while, even with her disease. Plaintiffs countered that even so, Plaintiff's death will be a painful one.
In the second trial, Jurors found in favor of the plaintiff and rendered a verdict of $7.5 million for the claims of pain and suffering and loss of consortium from plaintiff's asbestos-related peritoneal mesothelioma.
Parts Picker at General Motors Dies From Mesothelioma, Family Sues
In December of 2002, Plaintiff, who was the vice president of a large advertising company, died of mesothelioma just days after his 50th birthday. He was the son of a lifelong employee in the parts department of General Motors. The plaintiff himself worked in GM's Englewood warehouse as a parts picker during his college summers and was exposed to asbestos. Among the automotive products that he handled were asbestos containing brakes and clutches. Plaintiff and his wife lived in Glen Ridge, New Jersey. He fell ill with mesothelioma in 2001.
The decedent was diagnosed after having fluid drained from his chest cavity and undergoing a thoracotomy. He underwent aggressive chemotherapy in early 2002 and underwent surgery to remove a lung in July of that year. Shortly thereafter, the cancer spread to his abdomen. Unable to treat the malignancy in his stomach with chemotherapy, doctors performed surgery in early December. He died later that month.
The decedent's surviving spouse brought a strict liability wrongful death action against Canada's Asbestos Corporation Limited (ACL) and Borg-Warner Corporation for wrongful death. Her suit sought damages for the decedent's pain and suffering. They also sought damages for plaintiff's lost earnings, as well as for his family's loss of consortium, loss of services and loss of parental care and guidance. She also sued GM, Honeywell International Inc. and C.L. Zimmerman Co. GM settled with the plaintiff prior to trial. Honeywell settled during the presentation of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, and C.L. Zimmerman settled prior to closing arguments. The amounts of the settlements are confidential.
Borg-Warner did not settle, claiming that its products were safe and were incapable of causing mesothelioma, and that counsel for the estate had failed to prove that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from its clutches. The plaintiff's experts testified that asbestos is released from friction products such as brakes and clutches. The experts further testified that asbestos is known to cause diseases such as mesothelioma.
The Jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff's family. Damages were awarded in the amount of $30,312,204.
Textile Workers Sue for Mesothelioma and Other Asbestos Exposure Related Injuries
The plaintiffs were plant workers employed by Riegel Paper Mills in northwestern New Jersey. Plaintiff#1 worked in the plant from 1956 until 1994; Plaintiff#2, born in 1950, worked in the plant from 1968 until 2004; Plaintiff#3, born in 1942, worked in the plant from 1963 until 2003; Plaintiff#4, who died in 2002 at age 62, worked in the plant from 1965 until 2002; and Plaintiff#5, who died in 2001 at age 83, worked in the plant from 1939 until 1982. The plaintiffs all claimed that they suffered injuries as a result of working with asbestos-containing dryer felts made by defendant Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc.
The plaintiffs sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. of Windsor, Connecticut, claiming that dust from asbestos-laden fabric textiles, which were used to dry the paper, caused the asbestos exposure related injuries and respiratory problems for the workers. The workers handled, cut and cleaned the felts with compressed air, causing asbestos fibers to become airborne.
Plaintiff#1 suffered from pleural plaque scarring, diagnosed in 2002. He suffered from chronic chest pains, shortness of breath, digestion problems and coughing. He sought damages only for pain and suffering and fear of cancer. Plaintiff#2 and Plaintiff#3 claimed that they suffered from pleural plaque scarring and experienced similar problems as Plaintiff#1, including chest pains and shortness of breath.
Plaintiff#4 died of lung cancer. He was survived by his wife. His estate sought unspecified damages for loss of enjoyment of life and his wife sought unspecified damages for loss of society and her husband's services.
Plaintiff#5 died of mesothelioma. He was survived by his two adult daughters. His estate sought unspecified damages for loss of enjoyment of life and one of his daughters, who appeared at trial, sought unspecified damages for loss of society.
The defense denied liability, contending that the plaintiffs alleged injuries were not caused by asbestos exposure, and in the event that they were, it did not come from the defendant's products. The defense contended that Plaintiff#4's death stemmed from his life-long history of smoking, and that the cause of Plaintiff#5's death was from natural causes. Defense further contended that Plaintiff#2 and Plaintiff#3 did not have any injury that could be associated with asbestos. The defense contended that there was no pleural scarring in Plaintiff#2 and the defense expert radiologist said that the pleural plaque scarring in Plaintiff#1 did not originate from asbestos exposure.
Finally, defendant contended that if the plaintiffs' injuries were asbestos-related, it originated from other former defendants' products. The defense argued that not enough asbestos fibers were released from the sheets to cause the plaintiffs' injuries. This was contested by the plaintiffs' microscopy expert, who testified that fibers from the Scapa product were emitted at a hazardous level.
The jury found the defendant entirely liable for the injuries of Plaintiff#1 and the estates of Plaintiff#4 and Plaintiff#5. But in the cases of Plaintiff#2 and Plaintiff#3, the jury did not find their injuries were caused by asbestos, and their cases were no-caused. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $995,000. However, because Plaintiff#4 was a smoker, the jury cut his award by 70%, leaving him $73,650.
Pottery Worker Uses Talc Containing Asbestos, Exposure Results in Mesothelioma, Widow Sues
Between 1975 and 1982 Plaintiff used NYTAL 100 talc, manufactured by R.T
Vanderbilt and purchased from Hammill & Gillespie, in his New Jersey pottery business. The talc was used to make glazes for his pots. Plaintiff would mix NYTAL 100 with other ingredients. This mixing process created breathable dust which plaintiff's counsel contended contained asbestos.
Prior to his diagnosis, Plaintiff was in good physical condition. Health and fitness were important to the Plaintiff's family, in fact, his wife coordinated a teen health program. After his diagnosis, Plaintiff began to lose weight rapidly and underwent his first round of chemotherapy in October 2002. In total he underwent ten rounds of chemotherapy. Plaintiff was placed in hospice care in January 2004. He lost 40 pounds since his diagnosis and spent his last months bedridden and in constant pain. In April of 2004 Plaintiff died.
Plaintiff's widow sued R.T Vanderbilt and Hammill & Gillespie under a products liability theory for the glaze her husband used, which contained asbestos. The parties stipulated to lost wages of $1.45 million. Damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium were sought. No damages for medical costs were sought. There was no dispute at trial that Plaintiff died because of mesothelioma.
Plaintiff's expert testified that exposure to NYTAL was a substantial cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. He stated that no level of exposure to asbestos is safe. He cited several studies including 1980 and 1990 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health which concluded that NYTAL contains asbestos. He further compared Plaintiff's lung tissue samples to employees at Vanderbilt and they both demonstrated exposure to asbestos. Defense counsel disputed that Plaintiff's mesothelioma resulted from exposure to talc, arguing instead that Plaintiff's cancer was spontaneous having no known cause.
Defense expert testified that he did not believe NYTAL contained asbestos based on his analysis, although he did admit that some in the field reached contrary conclusions. He further argued that even if NYTAL contained asbestos the exposure would not have been enough to have caused Plaintiff's cancer, despite the fact that purchase records indicated Plaintiff purchased 3,000 pounds of talc over a 7 year period.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that Plaintiff's exposure to the asbestos contained in the glaze was the proximate cause of his death and awarded his widow $3 million.
Railroad Worker, known as a Train Knocker, Dies of Asbestos Related Pulmonary Fibrosis
In December 2002, Plaintiff, a car man or "train-knocker", for railroad companies, died of pulmonary fibrosis. He had been diagnosed with the disease in 2000. He worked for Central Railroad of New Jersey and its successor company, Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail) from 1974 to 1983, and for New Jersey Transit from 1983 to 2001.
Plaintiff was on oxygen for the last two years of his life. He was in constant pain and was on a list for a lung transplant, though a donor was never found. His wife brought a wrongful death claim and also sought survival damages for the pain and suffering Plaintiff sustained prior to his death.
Claiming that on-the-job exposure to asbestos and other contaminants caused his death, Plaintiff's wife, individually and on behalf of his estate and their autistic, dependent 23-year-old son, sued Central Railroad, Conrail and NJ Transit for negligence under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). She claimed Plaintiff's duties as an employee exposed him to welding fumes, metal dust from grinding, silica from the sand hoppers on the trains, silica and sawdust from sandblasting and asbestos from brake shoes and gaskets. She further claimed that the defendants failed to provide him with adequate respiratory protection, such as a mask, and failed to create and maintain a safe work environment.
The defense argued that it provided adequate protection and that the Plaintiff had pulmonary fibrosis that could have been caused by his smoking or even by wood dust he was exposed to when he was a carpenter.
Conrail settled prior to trial for a half million dollars. After a jury trial, New Jersey Transit was found 50% liable, Conrail 35%, Central Railroad 7% and another corporate defendant 7% liable. It awarded the plaintiffs $19.17 million, including $15.07 million to the Plaintiff widow and her son for their claims and $4.1 million to the estate. The net recovery was $11.43 million.
BOILER REPAIRMAN AWARDED $10 MILLION FOR MESOTHELIOMA
In 2003, Plaintiff, a former boiler repairman, was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked as a boiler repairman for 40 years. For 30 of those years, he was employed by Suburban Fuel Oil in Paramus, New Jersey. Plaintiff briefly underwent chemotherapy which was later discontinued as it proved ineffective. Plaintiff and his wife sued several asbestos-containing product distributors and manufacturers.
In his suit, Plaintiff alleged that he worked with asbestos-containing cement, rope and insulation panels while employed by the defendant Suburban Fuel Oil. These products were manufactured and sold to Suburban by a company called Universal Engineering. There were no warnings on these products that indicated the danger of asbestos. Plaintiff argued at trial that using these products directly caused his mesothelioma. Plaintiff argued that Universal, the manufacturer of the products, was responsible for his condition.
The case went to trial, and the jury found for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were awarded $10 million in damages. The jury found that in addition to the exposure the plaintiff suffered due to the products manufactured by Universal, 3 other companies manufactured asbestos containing products which contributed to plaintiff's injuries. Those companies were Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania, who manufactured an oxygen generating plant that the plaintiff worked with while in the military, a gasket manufacturing company named A.W. Chesterton, and a boiler manufacturing company named Burnham Corporation out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
$19 MILLION FOR RAILROAD CAR MAN WHO DIED OF PULMONARY FIBROSIS AT AGE 50
Plaintiff decedent's family brought a wrongful death case when a 50-year-old railroad car man died after he was exposed to pollutants in the course and scope of his employment. The decedent was survived by his spouse and an adult child. The defendants were the transportation companies that he worked for during the course of his employment. The family contended that the defendants did not provide a safe work environment for their loved one. Their allegations included that the defendants failed to equip all of their employees with respiratory safeguards. Further, the family claimed that the employers also failed to warn that silica, wood dust, asbestos, and other substances in the workplace could cause health problems to their employees. At trial, the defendants denied liability and contended that the decedent's disease, (in this case, pulmonary fibrosis) may have been caused from his exposure to dust as a carpenter. They also claimed that his cigarette smoking was a factor is his condition and ultimately, his death. At trial the jury awarded the family over 19 million dollars.
SHIPYARD WORKER SUFFERS FROM ASBESTOSIS AND FEARS FUTURE CANCER
A 54 yr old retired shipyard worker was diagnosed with asbestosis which, he claimed he developed as a result of exposure to the defendants' asbestos-containing products. The asbestosis caused him to suffer from shortness of breath, and he was understandably fearful and concerned that he would later develop mesothelioma or cancer. He denied his long time smoking habit contributed to his injury, a fact which the defendant obviously contested. The defendant contended that the possibility of plaintiff developing a lung condition later could be caused by his 40-year smoking habit. The defendant admitted and stipulated to 45 % liability prior to trial, and the award was reduced accordingly. The remaining defendants settled prior to trial. At trial, the plaintiff was awarded a total of $287,500, and his wife received $50,000 for loss of consortium.
CAMDEN COUNTY JURY FINDS IN FAVOR OF EQUIPMENT OPERATOR WITH ASBESTOSIS
A 51 year old heavy-equipment operator at a chemical plant brought suit against the defendant manufacturers of asbestos containing products after he was diagnosed with asbestosis and pleural thickening. He worked at the chemical plant most of his life, is was clear that any exposure had occurred at that job site.
The plaintiff named other defendants besides the manufacturer in his lawsuit. One of these defendants settled out of court prior to the trial, but the amount of the award was confidential.
At trial, the plaintiff and his doctors testified that he suffered from severe shortness of breath, and was unable to engage in activities he enjoyed in the past because of his condition. The defendant denied liability and pointed to the fact that the plaintiff had a previous heart condition and was a long time cigarette smoker. The Camden County Superior Court jury didn't believe the defendants version of the facts, and awarded the plaintiff over $200,000 in damages for his condition.
WIFE SUES FOR MACHINIST HUSBAND WHO DIED OF MESOTHELIOMA
A 69 year old man was diagnosed and later died from mesothelioma. He was a machinist in a refinery for nearly half of his life. He was survived by his wife, who bought suit against the manufacturers of the asbestos containing products which led to her husband's untimely death. He suffered a great deal in his last days, which were spent in a hospital. Defendants denied liability, and the case went to trial.
The jury in Camden County who heard the case found in favor of the machinist's widow, and awarded the family over $2,000,000 for his pain and suffering, his medical bills, and her loss.
FAMILY OF SHIPYARD WORKER RECOVERS FOR MESOTHELIOMA DEATH
This case involved a 64 year old man who died from mesothelioma. He had filed suit prior to his death, but died before trial. He was a machinist, and worked in a shipyard. Plaintiff alleged his exposure occurred while working with insulation which contained asbestos. Plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer of the insulation products was aware of the dangers of asbestos, but nevertheless continued to sell these dangerous products and failed to warn the users of the insulation materials of the presence or dangers of asbestos.
The case went to trial in Camden County superior court, approximately 6 months after the plaintiff's untimely death. The defendants vigorously denied liability. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $5,500,000 in damages to his surviving family.