After her husband, Melvin, died of malignant mesothelioma in 2023, Donna Welch filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Atlas Turner and several other companies that she blamed for his illness. After the company refused to participate in the trial, it was held in contempt, placed in default, and a receiver was assigned to it. The company appealed this action to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which upheld the decision, calling the company’s behavior “conspicuous misconduct.”
Asbestos Company’s Noncompliance with Mesothelioma Trial Earns Sanctions
Atlas Turner is an active Canadian company that was named in the widow’s mesothelioma claim because it produced and sold asbestos insulation. Its customer lists showed that it shipped its product to South Carolina, and Mrs. Welch asserted that her late husband had been exposed to the products while he worked in Greenwood, South Carolina.
In response to the mesothelioma lawsuit, Atlas Turner moved to dismiss the claims against it on the basis that South Carolina lacked personal jurisdiction against it. When the trial court denied this motion and ordered the company to participate in discovery, it ignored all notices served upon it. The court warned the company that a lack of cooperation would result in sanctions and a possible contempt charge, but they continued to ignore all the court’s orders. The judge held the company in contempt for its “willful and intentional” refusal to comply, placed it in default, and appointed a Receiver over its insurance assets. The company appealed to the state’s Supreme Court.
State Supreme Court Refuses to Disturb Sanctions in Mesothelioma Case
The first decision that the South Carolina Supreme Court justices made regarding the company’s refusal to participate in the mesothelioma lawsuit was a refusal to disturb the sanctions placed on it by the trial judge. They noted that the record “overflows with examples of Atlas Turner’s cavalier disdain of the elementary rules of civil procedure.”
The justices chose not to address the subject of jurisdiction, writing that though the widow had produced enough evidence to show the company had done business in South Carolina, the matter should be resolved at a later point based on the company’s claim that it was reserving the issue. Finally, the court concluded that the company’s conduct justified the appointment of a Receiver based on its “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s discovery order, but found it appropriate to reduce the scope of the Receiver’s power to ensure that it did not go beyond what was allowed by precedent.
If you or someone you love has been the victim of an asbestos company’s negligence, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
