After Appeal, California Court Orders CertainTeed to Pay Over $10 Million to Mesothelioma Victim

There are many mesothelioma lawsuits filed against asbestos companies on the grounds that they either knew or should have known about the hazards that asbestos posed to those working with their products. But in some cases, the accusation goes beyond basic negligence and accuses defendants of actively concealing danger. Juries convinced of this level of malicious deception tend to assign extremely high damages awards, and that was the case in the suit filed by Michael and Cindy Burch of California against CertainTeed Corporation.

Long-Time A/C Installer Awarded $10 Million By California Jury

Michael Burch spent years working as an air conditioning pipe installer, and when he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma he blamed CertainTeed Corporation for having exposed him to asbestos. Though there were several other companies named in his suit, CertainTeed attracted the majority of the attention, as Burch and his wife accused the company of fraudulent concealment.

For fraudulent concealment to be established in a mesothelioma lawsuit, there are several elements that need to be proven. These include:

• That the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact
• That the defendant had a duty to disclose the material fact to the plaintiff
• That the defendant intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud
• That the plaintiff was not aware of the material fact and would have behaved differently if they had known
• That the plaintiff was damaged as a result of not knowing the material fact

The jury agreed that these elements were present and awarded Mr. Burch $9.25 million in non-economic damages, as well as almost $800,000 in economic damages. CertainTeed appealed this verdict.

CertainTeed’s Appeal of Mesothelioma Verdict Denied

Though CertainTeed argued that a fraudulent concealment judgment was not appropriate in the mesothelioma verdict, the Court of Appeals of California upheld the jury’s decision, and assigned full responsibility to the company.  The court took special note of evidence of the company’s intent to deceive, including internal memos and attempts to have OSHA change their allowed asbestos exposure levels, as well as efforts to block use of the word “cancer” on warning labels.