After years of working as an insulation contractor at shipyards in California, Hawaii, and Washington state, Dennis Freeman died of malignant mesothelioma. His family members filed lawsuits against multiple companies, seeking compensation for his suffering and their loss. Though several defendants petitioned to have the cases against them dismissed, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied all but a few of their motions.
Widow and Family Members Seek Compensation Following Mesothelioma Death
Mesothelioma claims were filed against BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc., Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) by Linnea, Katti, and Dennea Freeman following the death of Dennis Freeman. They blamed asbestos fibers from products that the companies manufactured, distributed, or sold, saying he’d inhaled them in the course of doing his job.
The mesothelioma claim cited negligence and strict liability under both maritime and California law, and the victim’s widow also sought compensation for loss of consortium. The companies argued that the negligence and strict liability claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and BAE further asked for Linnea’s loss of consortium claim to be dismissed. BAE also questioned the court’s personal jurisdiction over the case and was joined by NASSCO in asking for the family’s request for damages for fraud and punitive damages to be dismissed.
Court Keeps Most of Family’s Mesothelioma Lawsuit Alive
In reviewing each of the motions to dismiss individually, Hon. M. James Lorenz first denied BAE’s challenge of the court’s jurisdiction, noting that the required tests had been satisfied. The judge also confirmed that maritime law applied to the facts of the case, and noted that it is not inconsistent with California state law in terms of recognizing both negligence and principles of product liability.
With reference to the assertion that the mesothelioma victim’s family had failed to state a specific cause of action for their claims, the court disagreed with the companies, saying that they did not need to point to specific actions for each defendant because each was accused of identical conduct, though committed separately. With reference to the defendants arguing against facing strict liability claims, the judge noted that there was sufficient proof that Mr. Freeman had been exposed to asbestos and that it was the sole cause of his injuries, so he denied the motion to dismiss those claims. The judge did grant the dismissal of the widow’s loss of consortium claims because the death had not happened on the high seas. He also dismissed the request for damages for fraud, as it was not associated with a substantive cause of action.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
