Billy Moore was diagnosed with mesothelioma forty years after he performed electrical and welding work at Tesoro Alaska Company’s refinery in Kenai, Alaska. A trial court dismissed his negligence claim against the company, but earlier this month, an appeals court reversed that decision, agreeing with Mr. Moore’s estate that they had provided sufficient evidence to warrant the case being heard and decided by a jury.
Welder Blamed Mesothelioma on Work Done at Alaska Refinery
Mr. Moore filed his mesothelioma lawsuit one month after his diagnosis and succumbed to the disease two months later. His estate refiled the claim, which specified that he had performed electrical and welding work at Tesoro’s Kenai refinery in 1980 and 1981 while employed by a third-party contractor. The claim included testimony that his work had been performed outside, on the ground below insulators and pipefitters who were installing and removing insulation. It was also noted that, though he was a subcontractor, Tesoro’s employees were constantly walking the jobsite, and that they fired contractors who were not following their rules.
In response to the mesothelioma claim, Tesoro filed a motion for summary judgment. The company argued that insufficient evidence had been provided to establish exposure or causation, that no proof had been offered that the company had a duty to Mr. Moore, and that the claim was barred because too much time had gone by between the last exposure and Mr. Moore’s lawsuit. The lower court granted summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington reversed that decision and allowed the claim to move forward.
In Reversing Lower Court Decision, Appeals Court Notes Significant Evidence
In handing down its reversal of the trial court’s decision, the judges of the appeals court cited several aspects of the evidence submitted by the mesothelioma victim’s estate. They particularly noted testimony about both Tesoro’s control of the site and that the company had instructed contractors to use up previously purchased asbestos-containing materials before turning to materials that did not include asbestos, despite regulations against the use of asbestos insulation.
The judges also agreed that the victim’s estate had presented enough evidence to establish the likelihood that the exposure he had suffered would have been sufficient to have caused his mesothelioma, and agreed that the case qualified for the state of Alaska’s exception to its statute of repose based on both the accusation of negligence and of the use of a defective product. The case will move on for a jury to decide.
If you or someone you love has been exposed to asbestos and has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
