David Hoff was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma after more than 30 years of working as a carpenter. Before his death, he and his wife filed suit again ten defendants whose asbestos-contaminated products they blamed for his illness. The couple prevailed in court, but one company objected and asked for the verdict to be overturned on multiple grounds. The Court of Appeals of Oregon reviewed their motions and denied them in their entirety, leaving the widow with $2.9 million in compensation in damages and for her losses.
Kaiser Gypsum Named in Mesothelioma Lawsuit
Though the original mesothelioma lawsuit named multiple defendants, by the time the evidence was presented at trial only Kaiser Gypsum remained, as the others had all settled out of court. The jury believed Mr. Hoff’s former coworkers’ testimony about the constant use of Kaiser Gypsum’s drywall products throughout his years of work and assigned the company 35% responsibility for the $750,000 in medical damages, $4 million in noneconomic damages suffered by Mr. Hoff, and $4,000,000 for Mrs. Hoff’s noneconomic damages.
Facing a total of $2.9 million in mesothelioma liabilities based on 35% of the total damages assigned by the jury, Kaiser Gypsum filed an appeal, citing three errors they felt had been made. They argued that there had been insufficient evidence that Mr. Hoff had been exposed to their product, and that the court had erred in having allowed the amount of compensation that was awarded to be asked for and provided.
Appeals Court Permits $2.9 Mesothelioma Verdict to Stand
In reviewing the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeals of Oregon decided that no errors had been made in the Hoff’s mesothelioma lawsuit. The wrote that “the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that over a two-year period, Hoff would have been exposed to defendant’s product that was commonly used” at his work site.
As for the questioning of the compensation awarded, the court wrote that the company had “several opportunities to verify or clarify its potential exposure…. but did not file such a motion” and that there had been “repeated failures to clarify or limit the consortium damages.” They refused to lower the damages based on this failure on the defendant’s part.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can connect you with the resources you need. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
