When an individual is diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, one of the first things they do as part of their quest for justice is to identify the companies responsible for exposing them to asbestos. The list is frequently long, as their work environments typically contained multiple contaminated products. Named defendants often try to evade these claims. In a recent case in New York, a construction company used a faulty legal argument that was quickly denied by the court.
Mesothelioma Lawsuit Points to Asbestos in Boilers as Contributing Factor
The mesothelioma lawsuit was filed by William Theophil. Theophil had worked at the 59th Street Powerhouse in New York City in the late 1960s, where his job responsibilities included scraping gaskets, cleaning pumps, and re-piping pumps. He named several companies whose asbestos-contaminated products he worked with or near, including O’Connor Constructors, who were responsible for the insulation in the boilers which were close to where he worked.
In response to Mr. Theophil’s mesothelioma lawsuit pointing to asbestos exposure from insulation and refurbishing of the boilers that were situated in the area where he worked. O’Connor filed a motion to dismiss the case against them.
Company Argues Against Being Named in Mesothelioma Claim
O’Connor responded to the mesothelioma lawsuit by arguing that because Mr. Theophil was unable to provide evidence that he had “ever encountered O’Connor’s employees at any point in his life and thus cannot demonstrate that he was exposed to asbestos from a product for which O’Connor would owe a duty to warn,” the case against them should be dismissed. They also argued that they were not based in New York and should not be required to defend themselves as a New York company.
In handing down his decision, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York County Adam Silvera noted that O’Connor’s argument in favor of dismissal rested on the lack of proof provided by the mesothelioma victim rather than on indicating that they had not exposed him to asbestos. He pointed to New York precedent indicating that “pointing to gaps in an opponent’s evidence is insufficient” to warrant summary judgment, and that they were not entitled to introduce new arguments now. He also said that although the company was based in Massachusetts, the fact that they had a New York office made New York an appropriate court for the case to be heard.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, having knowledgeable advocates by your side makes all the difference. For information on how the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
