Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. Victims of the fatal disease often seek compensation from the companies whose negligence led to their illness. Afraid of multi-million-dollar verdicts against them, these companies use various legal maneuvers to have cases dismissed or heard in courts thought to be less sympathetic to victims. In a recent case in Washington state, the corporate successor to a victim’s employer tried to have the claim removed to federal court by accusing the victim of fraudulent actions. Their accusation was rejected.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Late Addition of Defendant Sparks Legal Action
Mesothelioma victim Jeffrey Cockrum filed a personal injury lawsuit against seven defendants in Washington State’s King County Superior Court in June of 2022. Included among those he blamed for exposing him to asbestos was Howmet Aerospace, successor to his former employer, Alcoa Wenatchee Works. He later added another defendant, Washington-based North Coast Electrical Company, but did so without first getting permission from the court to amend his original complaint.
Because the list of original defendants in the mesothelioma claim did not include any Washington-based companies, Howmet filed to have the case removed to federal court based on what is known as diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction applies when no plaintiff or defendant is located in the same state. Mr. Cockrum voluntarily dismissed his original action and filed a new claim including North Coast as a defendant, but Howmet resubmitted their removal request, this time accusing the victim of submitting a “sham defendant” in order to defeat the question of diversity jurisdiction.
Court Rejects Sham Defendant Argument in Mesothelioma Case
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington rejected Howmet’s premise that the mesothelioma victim’s addition of North Coast to the list of defendants was fraudulent joinder. They noted that state law required victims to establish exposure to asbestos from a particular defendant’s product and that the exposure was a substantial factor in the development of their injury, and that Mr. Cockrum’s deposition testimony to this effect made North Coast a viable defendant.
Though Howmet claimed that Mr. Cockrum’s evidence was circumstantial and that only proof of limited sales by North Coast to Alcoa had been submitted during deposition, the court agreed that other proof might be submitted at a later date. The court also noted that Howmet had attempted to place the burden of proof on the victim when the law required that Howmet demonstrate that a claim against the company could not be made “on any theory.” The case will remain in state court for a local jury to hear.
Mesothelioma victims face many challenges, but the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn about the resources we can provide.
