Guiseppe Rullo was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer after a decade of working at Con Ed. He and his wife have filed suit against multiple manufacturers of the asbestos-containing products to which he was exposed during that time. One of those companies, Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., attempted to evade responsibility by pointing to a discrepancy in Mr. Rullo’s deposition testimony. The judge hearing the case rejected the company’s argument, allowing the case to move forward.
Asbestos Lung Cancer Victim’s Deposition Testimony at Issue
When Mr. Rullo was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer, he pointed to several products containing the carcinogenic material for his illness, including those made by Atwood & Morrill. At his deposition, he testified that he had been exposed to Atwood pumps at Con Edison powerhouses where he’d worked, and the company seized on that assertion because they’d only manufactured asbestos-containing valves. Based on this discrepancy, they filed a motion for the case against them to be dismissed.
In response, the lung cancer victim pointed to previous external depositions that showed that Atwood valves had been identified at his worksites as proof that they had exposed him to asbestos, but the company reiterated that because he’d referred to pumps rather than valves, they should be excused from the case.
Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Attempt to Evade Liability in Lung Cancer Claim
In response to the asbestos company’s argument, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York noted the state’s position that summary judgment should only be granted if the moving party has sufficiently established that eliminates any material issues of fact from the case. He then pointed out that the company had not done that, instead pointing to what it perceived as a fatal flaw in his case. The judge said that Mr. Rullo had provided “clear and unequivocal” details of his work history from fifty years earlier, “including the locations of powerhouses he worked at, what his role was, and which specific categories of products he was exposed to.”
The judge then went on to say that “pointing to gaps in an opponent’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant’s entitlement to summary judgment” and that they had failed to establish their products could not have contributed to his injury. Most importantly, the judge said that “a reasonable juror could determine that Mr. Rullo was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by defendant Atwood from his work at various Con Ed powerhouses and that such exposure could have contributed to his illness.” The case against Atwood will proceed.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, lung cancer, or another asbestos-related disease, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to provide you with the resources you need. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
