Asbestos contamination of cosmetic talc has been blamed for numerous cases of malignant mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, asbestos-related lung cancer, and other serious illnesses. In a recent case filed in the Supreme Court of New York County, a woman diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease has named well-known companies including Avon, Chanel, and Estee Lauder for exposing her to asbestos in their products. The manufacturer of some of those products, Kolmar Laboratories, Inc., asked to be dismissed from the case, but their request was denied.
Laboratory That Manufactured Talc Cites Deficiencies in Asbestos Victim’s Proof
Many asbestos companies accused of negligence in mesothelioma or asbestos-related claims try to evade responsibility through a legal maneuver known as summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request for the claim to be dismissed, and for it to be granted, the courts required that they prove it would have been impossible for their product to have caused the plaintiff’s illness.
Though the level of proof required to be dismissed from a mesothelioma case is clear, many of these companies try to point to deficiencies in the victim’s claim. This does not meet the bar required by the law, as Kolmar Laboratories discovered with their recent petition for summary judgment in the claim filed against them by Christina Thomas. Instead of trying to show their innocence, the company said that she had not proven she was exposed to asbestos-containing talc that they had manufactured and that if she had been, she had not shown that the exposure caused her illness.
Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Request for Summary Judgment
In response to the company’s petition, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County first noted the high level of proof required to obtain summary judgment in a mesothelioma or asbestos-related case, then pointed to the company’s failure to provide what would have been needed for them to succeed. Instead, he wrote, their argument had focused “largely on plaintiffs evidence and lack of ability to pinpoint the proportion of products used that may have been actually manufactured by defendant.”
The judge went on to say that the company had “confirmed simultaneously that they were manufacturers of such products.” Saying that the asbestos company’s arguments were “plainly insufficient,” the judge denied their request, and the case will continue.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
