Corey G. Griffin was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma after more than four decades of working as an artist, makeup specialist, designer, and stylist in New York City. He blames his illness on exposure to asbestos in the talc products he used for his job and filed a personal injury lawsuit against numerous cosmetic defendants. When one of these companies sought dismissal of the case against them, the judge hearing the case denied their request, though he did agree that the victim’s pursuit of punitive damages was not appropriate.
Cosmetic Company Seeks Dismissal from Mesothelioma Lawsuit
One of the defendants named in Mr. Griffin’s mesothelioma lawsuit is American International Industries, a manufacturer and distributor of beauty and skincare products for men and women. In response to being accused of negligence and to Mr. Griffin’s inclusion of punitive damages in his case against them, the company filed a motion for summary judgment, asking for the claim to be dismissed as a matter of law.
To succeed in having a motion for summary judgment granted in a mesothelioma case, the moving party needs to show that there is “sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact.” The company offered testimony from their own corporate representative that their products contained no asbestos and offered a scientific study that found no increased risk of mesothelioma in workers who were occupationally exposed to talc.
Judge Dismissed Punitive Damages Claim But Allows Mesothelioma Suit to Continue
In reviewing the mesothelioma defendant’s argument, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County agreed with the company that punitive damages were inappropriate but denied their request to have the entire case against them dismissed. Referring to the makeup company’s proffered evidence and the evidence submitted by the victim, the judge said it was a “classic battle of the experts” that needed to be decided by a jury.
As for the victim’s quest for punitive damages, the judge agreed with the makeup company that they would not be appropriate because they had no reason to believe that their talc contained asbestos and had taken measures to ensure their product was not contaminated. The judge said that “the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish the defendant for wanton and reckless, malicious acts” and that the evidence to support that was not present.
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.
