Many asbestos companies simply won’t accept being held responsible for mesothelioma and lung cancer deaths. Even after losing repeated decisions in court and being told to pay their victims, these companies attempt to raise additional legal arguments. In a recent example, an asbestos tile flooring company argued that a new legal standard warranted renewal of their original motion for summary judgment, but the Supreme Court of New York’s request, noted that they hadn’t proven that the new law would have changed the outcome of their original motion.
Misunderstanding of New York Court’s Decision Drives Many Mesothelioma Appeals
In 2022, New York’s Court of Appeals made a decision that made it more difficult for mesothelioma plaintiffs to prove specific causation in low-dose asbestos matters. The Nemeth decision required victims to prove that exposure to asbestos can cause their disease and that they were exposed to enough of it to have caused the disease.
Since then, many losing defendants have tried to say that mesothelioma and lung cancer decisions against them were wrongly decided. Most recently, Mannington Mills argued that the lung cancer case filed by Paul Moutal should have been dismissed when they originally filed a motion for summary judgment and asked to renew its petition because the court hadn’t considered their expert witness’ quantification of asbestos exposure the victim had suffered. They also argued that the court should have allowed them to offer a simulation study of a product similar to their own to have the original case against them dismissed.
Judge Explains How Nemeth Decision Should Be Applied to Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Cases
In rejecting the asbestos company’s argument, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County said that they had failed to show how their motion would have been decided differently under the Nemeth decision since there is a different standard between a decision made regarding summary judgment and that made in a jury verdict.
He said that while Nemeth represented an extraordinary post-trial remedy, summary judgment does not require mesothelioma or lung cancer plaintiffs to prove specific causation: rather they only need to raise questions of triable fact. Further, a motion for summary judgment filed by an asbestos defendant requires them to establish that there was no basis for the claim, which Mannington had not done. The judge denied their request to renew the original motion for summary judgment.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or lung cancer, you need guidance from professionals with experience and expertise. The Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help you find that assistance. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
