A court ruling will allow the family of a former shipyard worker and auto mechanic who died of mesothelioma to move forward with its personal injury claim against Eaton Corporation. Though Eaton denied manufacturing the auto parts the victim blamed for his asbestos exposure, a federal judge denied the company’s request for summary judgment.
Mesothelioma Case Centers on Brake and Clutch Work
Richard Hotard was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2025 after having worked at Avondale Shipyards in 1965 and again from 1970 to 1973 and afterward spending years as an automotive mechanic performing brake and clutch replacement work. He died in June 2025. His widow and children filed wrongful death and survival claims in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, citing his testimony about inhaling asbestos dust created by grinding, sanding, and using compressed air on brake and clutch components, many of which he said were Eaton-branded brakes and Cutler-Hammer clutch parts.
Before his death, the mesothelioma victim listed products he worked with at least once a week, across passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy equipment, military vehicles, and eighteen-wheelers, but Eaton argued that the case should be dismissed based on an affidavit from a former company engineer who said that the specific products Mr. Hotard had described — Eaton passenger car brakes and Cutler-Hammer car and truck clutches — never actually existed.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Family Points to Conflicting Corporate Testimony
In arguing against allowing Eaton to be dismissed from the case, both the mesothelioma victim’s family and another named defendant, Huntington Ingalls (Avondale), asserted that Hotard’s broader body of testimony covered trucks and heavy equipment, and that this created a factual dispute over what products he actually used. Avondale also noted a deposition provided in a previous mesothelioma case, in which an Eaton corporate representative had acknowledged that the company manufactured asbestos-containing brakes for trucks.
In handing down his decision, U.S. District Judge Greg Gerard Guidry noted that mesothelioma litigation of this kind hinges on whether a jury can be convinced that the victim was exposed to a defendant’s product and that the exposure substantially contributed to their illness and death. Louisiana law indicates that in order for a motion for summary judgment like Eaton’s to be granted, they need to prove that there are no genuine disputes of material fact for a jury to resolve. Because Eaton’s assertion was in direct conflict with statements from their own representative and the victim, the judge denied the company’s motion, allowing the family’s claims, along with Avondale’s contribution claims, to proceed toward trial.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
