In February 2025, Ernest Adams was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma following decades of secondary and occupational exposure to asbestos. In filing a lawsuit against the companies he blames for his illness, he included Cummins, Inc. among those named as defendants, but provided no preliminary details about the company’s specific role in his illness. Though Cummins attempted to have the case against it dismissed based on this lack of detail, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the company’s motion, holding that the victim had provided sufficient information to make a plausible asbestos claim.
Man’s Mesothelioma Claim Cites Multiple Sources of Asbestos Exposure
According to the mesothelioma lawsuit, Mr. Adams worked in the 1970s as a tack welder in the early 1970s at the Avondale shipyard in Louisiana, as a finish carpenter and cabinet maker for Clover Contractors for roughly five years, and similar work for another contract in New Orleans. He also worked as a carpenter from 1990 to 2022. These roles took him to many asbestos-contaminated industrial and commercial sites. He also notes his exposure to asbestos carried into his home by his brother-in-law, and by his childhood exposure to his father’s work and workplace.
His claim asserts general negligence, strict liability, and negligence claims, and names two separate groups of defendants: the first, comprising asbestos miners, manufacturers, sellers, suppliers, contractors, distributors, and their insurers; and the second, comprising employers, executive officers, premises owners, and their insurers. Cummins is included in the list of defendants, but the company argued that the petitions filed with the court make no reference to a specific engine, jobsite, or task involving a Cummins product.
Court Decides Against Company’s Request for Dismissal from Mesothelioma Claim
In reviewing the mesothelioma victim’s claim and Cummins’ request for dismissal, the court agreed that a legal action can be dismissed for failure to state a claim with sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief, but disagreed that Mr. Adams’ claim falls into that category.
The judges wrote that “at this stage, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the named manufacturer defendants manufactured products that could be found at the listed jobsites, and that his exposure to these products at these jobsites substantially contributed to his mesothelioma diagnosis.” Concluding that at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court must take the victim’s allegations as true, they denied the asbestos company’s motion and allowed the case to move forward.
If you or someone you love 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.
