Callen Cortez blames his malignant mesothelioma diagnosis on multiple sources of exposure to asbestos. In addition to his own workplace, he also claims to have suffered take-home exposure from his brothers’ employment, and from his father’s as well. When he sought compensation for his injuries, the insurer for his father’s employer filed a motion for summary judgment, attempting to evade financial responsibility. District Judge Sarah S. Vance denied the company’s request.
Father’s Work for Insulation Company Blamed for Malignant Mesothelioma
Callen Cortez’s mesothelioma claim indicates that his father, Calise Cortez, had worked for Gabler Insulations, Inc., and that asbestos that his father carried home on his work clothing had substantially contributed to his illness. Gabler’s insurance coverage was provided by American Mutual Liability Insurance Company (AMLICO), which was liquidated in 1989. By state statute this made Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) responsible for AMLICO’s obligations.
LIGA argued that the mesothelioma victim’s claims against them should be dismissed, arguing that he had not introduced sufficient evidence that his father had worked with or been exposed to asbestos-containing products during his employment with Gabler, and that any take-home exposure he suffered would have been insubstantial in light of the brevity of his father’s employment with the company.
Court Rejects Insurer’s Arguments Against Being Held Responsible for Mesothelioma Diagnosis
In reviewing the insurance company’s argument against responsibility for Cortez’ mesothelioma, the judge pointed to the significant evidence that had been provided regarding Calise Cortez’ asbestos exposure. Mr. Cortez had testified that when his father came home from work each day, his clothes were covered with white dust from insulation “on his clothes, on his skin, and in his hair and on his boots and his hands.” She also pointed to previous cases affirming that asbestos had been present in Gabler’s products.
Regarding the insurer’s argument that even if Cortez had been exposed to asbestos from his father’s workplace it would have been insufficient to have caused his mesothelioma, the judge indicated that the argument failed for two reasons. First, that the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously ruled that brevity of exposure does not warrant summary judgment, and second that the victim’s expert witnesses each testified that the exposure from his father’s work had contributed to his risk, and that Gabler had failed to take appropriate precautions. The case will move forward to a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, it is essential that you have the resources you need. For information on how the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help you, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
