Companies with a history of exposing people to asbestos are frequently named in personal injury lawsuits filed by mesothelioma victims and others affected by the toxic material. These companies use a variety of strategies to evade responsibility, including undergoing a series of sales and mergers. In New York, one such company attempted to quash multiple claims against it by arguing against successor liability. When a lower court judge denied their motion, they took their case to a higher court, which agreed with the original judge’s decision.
Asbestos Company Argues They Are Not Answerable to Mesothelioma Claims
The Supreme Court of New York heard P.B. Heat’s appeal of several previous decisions involving mesothelioma and asbestos lawsuits against them. The company objected to decisions made by New York Court of Asbestos Litigation Judge Adam Silvera, who had denied their petitions for summary judgment. P.B. Heat argued that the victims had not put forth adequate proof in support of their argument that the company was legally responsible for their injuries. They also argued that New York law protected them against claims for wrongdoing by their predecessor companies.
In response to the company’s argument, the court immediately rejected the notion that the mesothelioma victims’ claims had been wrongly structured, noting that only a standard complaint with general allegations was required for these particular cases. The Supreme Court then went on to pursue a closer examination of the company’s argument against its liability for the wrongdoings of the companies that went before it.
New York Supreme Court Points to Exceptions to Successor Liability Cases in Mesothelioma Claims
The court agreed that successor corporations are not generally responsible for the civil wrongs of its predecessors, but went on to point to four exceptions that could apply to the mesothelioma and asbestos cases that the company was trying to evade. Those four exceptions are:
- When a corporation expressly or impliedly assumes the predecessor’s tort liability
- When there is a consolidation or merger of seller and buyer
- When the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation
- When the transaction is entered into fraudulently to escape tort liabilities
Close examination of the particulars of this case found both that the asbestos company’s own documents did not refute these exceptions, and that there were “issues of fact” that suggested the possibility that the company’s formation was indeed meant to evade responsibility for mesothelioma and asbestos claims. The company’s appeal was denied.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can guide you through the many challenges that you face. For more information, contact us today at 1-800-692-8608.
