Corey Tippin has filed a mesothelioma lawsuit against multiple companies, accusing them of negligently exposing him to the asbestos that caused his fatal illness. One of the named defendants is American International Industries, manufacturer of Clubman Talc. The company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the punitive damages charge against it, as well as arguing that the victim can’t establish that its product exposed him to asbestos. Though the judge dismissed the punitive damages charge, he left the balance of the claim in place for a jury to decide.
Clubman Talc Argues Against Liability for Man’s Mesothelioma
In its submission to the court, American International Industries argued that Mr. Tippin could not establish that its Clubman Talc product had exposed him to asbestos or that any alleged exposure caused his mesothelioma. To support its argument, the company offered testimony from its corporate representative, Charles Loveless, who submitted an affidavit stating that the product had never contained asbestos.
Additionally, the company submitted scientific studies that concluded that workers exposed to cosmetic talc at work had no heightened risk of mesothelioma and that less frequent exposure to the better quality, pharmaceutical-grade talc used in their product would pose even less risk. The company’s attorneys asserted that based on this information, the man’s exposure was insufficient to cause his cancer.
Judge Denies Asbestos Company’s Argument but Dismisses Punitive Damages Claim
In reviewing the arguments submitted by both the mesothelioma victim and the talc company, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County noted that the company had failed to meet its burden of proving that its product could not have caused his illness and that the case should move forward for a jury to weigh the competing causation evidence. However, he also ruled that Mr. Tippin’s argument that the company had known or should have known of the possibility that its talc contained asbestos was inappropriate.
Turning to the mesothelioma victim’s argument that the company should face punitive damages because it had a safety department responsible for overseeing the safe handling of asbestos, and that it had sought certifications that its talc was free of asbestos, the judge said that the arguments did not pass muster, and that the defendant should not be punished for having internal controls to minimize risk and follow the law. The case will move forward for a jury to determine whether causation exists, without the threat of punitive damages.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
