After years of working with boilers, Peter R. Carrier died of malignant mesothelioma in 2019, at the age of 76. His widow filed suit against the asbestos companies she blamed for his death, including Burnham, LLC, which she accused of having put its interest in profits over people. In response to her claim for punitive damages, Burnham filed a motion to dismiss this specific claim, but the judge hearing the case denied the company’s request.
Punitive Damages Sought by Mesothelioma Widow
When a mesothelioma victim or their survivors seek punitive damages from an asbestos manufacturer, it is generally because they believe that the company acted recklessly and with disregard for the health or wellbeing of people who would be exposed to their product. In including punitive damages in her claim against Burnham, LLC, Mr. Carrier’s widow, Lucia, suggested that the company had prior knowledge of the asbestos in its boiler parts, and of its dangers, but chose to ignore the risk in favor of maximizing profits.
In response to Mrs. Carrier seeking punitive damages in her mesothelioma claim, Burnham argued that the claim should be dismissed because the asbestos exposure from their boilers had been shown to fall below regulatory limits and that they had not been subjected to any workers’ compensation claims from their employees. The court, on hearing this argument rejected it.
Judge Rejects Boiler Company’s Arguments Against Punitive Mesothelioma Claim
Saying that the company “had plainly not met their burden at summary judgment,” Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County said that the lack of compensation claims from Burnham’s employees was “wholly irrelevant” to their conduct or duty as manufacturers of products that others could be exposed to. He also rejected the company’s reliance on a study that did not include a specific examination of a Burnham boiler, making it fall short of New York’s rules of evidence for a claim to be dismissed.
In handing down his ruling, Justice Silvera also noted that in previous testimony from a Burnham corporate representative in another mesothelioma claim, the witness had admitted that “Burnham, never … put a warning regarding hazards of asbestos on any of its boilers.” The judge said, “As such, defendant Burnham has failed to demonstrate their prima facie burden that punitive damages are not warranted herein, As a reasonable juror could find that defendant Burnham’s knowledge and use of asbestos in their boilers constituted a prioritization of their corporate benefits over plaintiff’s safety, issues of fact exist to preclude summary judgment on punitive damages.”
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and you would like information on seeking justice, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 for more information.
