Page Updated January 1, 2026

Inspector’s Mesothelioma Blamed on Asbestos-Contaminated Boilers

Page Reviewed and Edited by

Mesothelioma Attorney Paul Danziger

Calling their argument “unpersuasive,” a judge hearing a personal injury lawsuit filed by the widow of a mesothelioma victim denied an asbestos company’s motion to have the case dismissed and allowed the case to move forward for a jury to decide. 

Family Blames Asbestos Dust from Boiler Maintenance for Man’s Mesothelioma

After hearing pleadings from both sides, Judge Manuel J. Mendez of the New York City Asbestos Litigation court agreed that there was more than sufficient evidence to suggest that Thomas L. Eckrich’s malignant mesothelioma may have been caused by his exposure to ECR International’s Utica-brand boilers. 

The mesothelioma victim had been a pollution control engineer for the city of New York’s Department of Air Resource between 1970 and 1995. Over his 25-year tenure, much of his job responsibility involved being present during the maintenance and replacement of asbestos-containing boilers. He died in 2019, and his family filed suit against the manufacturer of those boilers, claiming that he had been sickened by asbestos dust that he inhaled when that work was being done. 

Company’s Own Representative’s Testimony Aligned with Mesothelioma Victim

Though ECR argued that their Utica-brand boilers could not have caused Eckrich’s mesothelioma because they had not contained asbestos, testimony from their own representative contradicted their assertion. Relying upon the New York state rules surrounding evidence and criteria for dismissing cases, Judge Mendez noted that when Mr. Eckrich’s product identification was combined with testimony from ECR’s corporate representative that asbestos-containing insulation was used in Utica Boilers still in service at the time Mr. Eckrich was exposed to them, it was more than enough to deny the motion for summary judgment and allow the case to go to a jury.

Further, the judge noted that ECR’s assertion that the mesothelioma victim had never been exposed to boilers and insulation that they had manufactured, sold, or distributed, “unpersuasive.”  

This ruling reinforces a growing trend in asbestos litigation: when a victim’s work history aligns with a manufacturer’s own admissions about asbestos use, courts will allow juries to decide liability. By rejecting the company’s attempt to distance itself from asbestos-containing boilers still in service during the exposure period, the court confirmed that manufacturers cannot rely on technical denials to escape accountability. For inspectors, engineers, and maintenance professionals who worked around industrial boilers, the decision strengthens mesothelioma claims tied to routine oversight and repair activities. It also signals that corporate testimony acknowledging asbestos use can be decisive in keeping cases alive and moving toward trial.