Union Carbide Product Blamed for Man’s Mesothelioma
James Alford and his heirs blamed his pleural mesothelioma diagnosis on the drilling mud additive products he worked with during his years of employment at Noble Drilling Corporation. His children assumed responsibility for his personal injury lawsuit against the products’ manufacturer, Union Carbide Corporation, which is making its way through the Louisiana court system.
Company Seeks Dismissal of Mesothelioma Claim
Union Carbide Corporation is frequently named as a defendant in mesothelioma and other injury claims because their product Calidria, which was used as a drilling mud additive, contained asbestos. Mr. Alford testified that he was responsible for mixing drilling mud on his company’s oil rigs from 1973 to 1985 and that the product was specified by a Chevron field engineer.
The mesothelioma victim’s testimony included specific references to two Calidria products – Visbestos and Flosal. Union Carbide filed a motion to dismiss the case on several grounds, including arguing that there were warnings on the packages of the additives that complied with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, and that Mr. Alford had specified Visbestos rather than Super Visbestos, as the product was called during his years of working for the drilling company.
In response, the Alford family called the warnings on the product insufficient and that the company’s argument about the product’s name was irrelevant because their mesothelioma claim is for negligence and strict liability for the “sale and supply of asbestos” rather than for any specific product name. They also urged the court to disregard the company’s attempt to dismiss the claim based on questions about the time period when Mr. Alford worked for the company.
Motion for Summary Judgment in Mesothelioma Lawsuit Denied
In response to the company’s multiple reasons for dismissing the mesothelioma lawsuit, the judges of the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Louisiana issued denials to all but one of the arguments. The court granted dismissal of charges that UCC’s product packaging was insufficient for asbestos-related products, but allowed all other claims against the company to survive summary judgment, stating that a reasonable jury hearing the case could agree that the end users of the product were not properly warned and that the victim could have misremembered the product’s full name. The case will continue for a jury to hear.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
