When mesothelioma victims file claims against asbestos companies, they frequently accuse dozens of companies of responsibility. In the case of Kirk Reulet, defendants included his former employers, property owners of premises where he was exposed, manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-contaminated products, and many of those companies’ insurers. When an insurer argued that it should not be held liable, the court provided an important lesson in which cases can and cannot be dismissed.
Mesothelioma Victim Claimed Multiple Exposures to Asbestos
Mr. Reulet’s mesothelioma lawsuit named Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company as successor to Stonewall Insurance Company, which had issued two insurance policies to another defendant, Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company, Inc. His claim asserted both second-hand exposure to Eagle’s products during the term of the first insurance policy — when he said his father carried home asbestos from Eagle’s products on his clothing — and from the term of the second insurance policy when he personally was exposed to Eagle’s products. Louisiana law makes the insurer of a company responsible if the company that they insure is found liable and the injury occurred within the state.
Berkshire Hathaway argued that it should be dismissed from the mesothelioma claim because there was no proof to support Eagle’s liability. The court then set out to determine whether there was evidence of Mr. Reulet’s exposure to asbestos during either insurance policy term.
Court Distinguishes Between Two Periods of Asbestos Exposure
The court looked separately at the two time periods during which Mr. Reulet believes he was exposed to the asbestos that led to his mesothelioma diagnosis. They determined that the evidence did not support Mr. Reulet’s father being exposed to asbestos from Eagle products during the time that the company insured Eagle. However, in looking at Mr. Reulet’s personal exposure, the evidence was clear-cut that he had worked with the company’s products and inhaled asbestos fibers during the second policy term.
The court agreed with Berkshire Hathaway that they were not liable for exposure and subsequent mesothelioma diagnosis during both of the policy periods. They dismissed the claim against the company for the time when his father had been exposed to Eagle’s products. But they also noted that there was more than sufficient evidence of direct exposure to Mr. Reulet’s own exposure during the period of the second insurance term. That case will remain active, and Berkshire Hathaway will remain a defendant and face a jury.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the road to justice can be a challenging journey. The Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
