Deadly Asbestos: the story goes on

The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries has fined two asbestos removal companies $379,100 for failing to remove asbestos from a demolition site in Seattle. The recipients of the fines are Partners Construction of Bonney Lake and Asbestos Construction Management of Federal Way.  The material left behind consisted largely of asbestos based “popcorn” ceiling. This type of news report reminds us as to just how dangerous asbestos can be. Even asbestos found outdoors and not in a confined space is an alarming event, as evidenced by Australian officials concerns when a contracted mower accidentally mowed over illegally dumped asbestos. Any disturbance of asbestos fibers emits airborne carcinogens, which if breathed can result in deadly cancer and other asbestos related diseases. If you have popcorn ceiling or suspect asbestos anywhere in your home or office, you’ll definitely want to hire a professional to give you an assessment. Unfortunately, the asbestos story continues.

Victory for Asbestos Victims: Washington Court of Appeals Decision

On March 3, 2014, Washington’s Court of Appeals handed down an opinion favorable to hardworking people exposed to asbestos. In Farrow v. Flowserve USA, Inc., a case handled by SGB’s asbestos trial attorneys, Kristin Houser, Tom Breen, and Bill Rutzick, Division I reversed a trial court’s decision that originally favored corporate defendant Flowserve. The newly published case is important because it holds that so long as other corporate defendants have a similar motive when examining an adverse witness, the testimony of the witness can be used against a corporate defendant who for whatever reason did not attend the first deposition. A party wishing to use the testimony must show that those who were present at the deposition had a similar motive (e.g., to discredit the witness) as those who did not attend the deposition would have had.

There’s no question: when it comes to making good law on Washington asbestos cases, no other law firm has a track record like SGB. As the law firm with the longest tenure championing the rights of Washington victims of mesothelioma, this victory is particularly gratifying. In an era when an asbestos law firm will travel the globe looking for mesothelioma cases, we’re content to do what we do best – representing mesothelioma victims who live right here in our home state, Washington .

Increased asbestos trials: When companies lose mesothelioma trials, the verdict speaks volumes.

More companies are taking asbestos cases to trial, or so it seems, only to find the results not what they had hoped for. Today's juries often rule against them and in favor of those suffering from asbestos related diseases. Two boiler companies recently learned the hard way when a New York City jury awarded a $190 million verdict against Cleaver Brooks Inc and Burnham LLC. The joint trial entailed five tradesmen who were exposed to asbestos dust and were later diagnosed with having developed mesothelioma. They worked in the steamfitting, plumbing and construction industries. Three of the five had passed away prior to the verdict coming down. (The story was first reported by NYC reporter Julia Marsh who covers the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan.)

This verdict, like others of late, might be indicative of certain trends. First, the asbestos industry is taking more cases to trial. Whether it's a matter of principle, business strategy or rolling the dice, this appears to be the trend. This makes it all the more important that families that hire a mesothelioma attorney must ensure that they have hired someone who can successfully take the case to trial if need be. And second, juries are quite comfortable holding companies responsible for what they did and what the failed to do. This isn't about the so called jackpot justice; these jurors are smart and when they are presented with the evidence they are able to reach the right result. Lastly, verdicts like these are not isolated in the New York area. They are happening all over the country. Considersome recent Crane Co. verdicts, for example. They run from coast to coast.

• March 2013:  A New York jury awards $35 million to an asbestos worker after Crane Co., failed to warn about the dangers of asbestos containing products.

• August 2012:  A Los Angeles jury renders a $32 million verdict against Crane Co. (and rejects Crane Co's argument that it is entitled to the government contractor defense).

There does not appear to be an end in the foreseeable future to the increased number of trials. I predict they will continue, as will the rightfully large verdicts that speak to accountability.

As vindicating as trials often are, we must remember thatno verdict can replace a loved one. No amount of money can take away the pain felt by these families. All we can ask for is that the civil justice system do its job. These companies that needlessly exposed folks to asbestos profited greatly: a verdict is never sufficient, but it does restore part of the balance.

Increased asbestos trials: When companies lose mesothelioma trials, the verdict speaks volumes.

More companies are taking asbestos cases to trial, or so it seems, only to find the results not what they had hoped for. Today's juries often rule against them and in favor of those suffering from asbestos related diseases. Two boiler companies recently learned the hard way when a New York City jury awarded a $190 million verdict against Cleaver Brooks Inc and Burnham LLC. The joint trial entailed five tradesmen who were exposed to asbestos dust and were later diagnosed with having developed mesothelioma. They worked in the steamfitting, plumbing and construction industries. Three of the five had passed away prior to the verdict coming down. (The story was first reported by NYC reporter Julia Marsh who covers the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan.)

This verdict, like others of late, might be indicative of certain trends. First, the asbestos industry is taking more cases to trial. Whether it's a matter of principle, business strategy or rolling the dice, this appears to be the trend. This makes it all the more important that families that hire attorneys must ensure that they have hired someone who can successfully take the case to trial if need be. And second, juries are quite comfortable holding companies responsible for what they did and what the failed to do. This isn't about the so called jackpot justice; these jurors are smart and when they are presented with the evidence they are able to reach the right result. Lastly, verdicts like these are not isolated in the New York area. They are happening all over the country. Consider  some recent Crane Co. verdicts, for example. They run from coast to coast.

• March 2013:  A New York jury awards $35 million to an asbestos worker after Crane Co., failed to warn about the dangers of asbestos containing products.

• August 2012:  A Los Angeles jury renders a $32 million verdict against Crane Co. (and rejects Crane Co's argument that it is entitled to the government contractor defense).

There does not appear to be an end in the foreseeable future to the increased number of trials. I predict they will continue, as will the rightfully large verdicts that speak to accountability.

As vindicating as trials often are, we must remember that  no verdict can replace a loved one. No amount of money can take away the pain felt by these families. All we can ask for is that the civil justice system do its job. These companies that needlessly exposed folks to asbestos profited greatly: a verdict is never sufficient, but it does restore part of the balance.

Needless exposure to asbestos: an OSHA citation in 2013

The United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known by its acroynm OSHA, has fined Ford Motor Company $41,000 for eight serious violations to OSHA's code. The violations appear something out of yesteryear:  Ford exposed employees to asbestos.

One of these alleged violations occurred when a pipe fitter was exposed to insulation containing asbestos, without any respiratory protection. This is a fact that commonly arises in asbestos litigation where the exposure happened decades ago. That this failure to protect workers would happen in 2013 boggles the mind. You can read the OSHA news release here. Attorneys for those unnecessarily exposed to asbestos often hear claims from representatives from defendants that byx date everyone protected workers and that respiratory equipment was ubiquitous. The OSHA citations demonstrate that if there are companies not protecting workers today, how can anyone be so certain they were protected decades ago?  We know that's not so; countless workers were commonly and needlessly exposed to asbestos prior to and during the 1960s and 1970s. Employers disregarded OSHA regulations thenand if OSHA's citations are accurate there are even violations today. It's a sad commentary.  Meanwhile, we'll keep paying attention to this latest development.