After Navy Veteran’s Mesothelioma Death, Widow Pursues Justice

Years before being diagnosed with the malignant mesothelioma that eventually claimed his life, Peter Allen had served as an electrician’s mate in the U.S. Navy onboard the LST 528 (later renamed the U.S.S. Catahoula Parish) and the U.S.S. Marquette. Blaming asbestos-contaminated boilers onboard those ships for his illness, his widow Lorraine filed suit against their manufacturer, who denied responsibility. Despite their plea to have the case dismissed, a judge ordered that the case be heard by a jury.

Motion for Summary Judgement in Mesothelioma Claim Denied

In testimony given before his mesothelioma death, Mr. Allen indicated that his work repairing motors and pumps throughout the ship had put him in close daily proximity to machinist mates who worked on asbestos pumps, and that at the time he had noticed the crumbling asbestos insulation within the equipment, as well as the dust that had been raised. 

In addition to this damning testimony, the mesothelioma victim also acknowledged several points that the boiler company used as their basis for having the case dismissed. He had admitted that the identifying labels on the boilers he had been closest to had been painted over within the battleship, and that he had also been near to asbestos from other sources, including bilge pumps, ventilation pumps, heating and air conditioning pumps, and water pumps throughout the ship. 

Boiler Company’s Motion to Dismiss Mesothelioma Claim Denied by Judge

In his ruling, Justice Manuel J. Mendez pointed out that in order for the mesothelioma claim to be dismissed, the asbestos company needed to show that all material issues of fact had been eliminated. Rather than pursuing evidence in support of that, the company had relied on their attorney’s affirmation alone, which was insufficient. He also noted that the victim only needed to show “facts and conditions from which defendant’s liability may be reasonably inferred.”

The testimony provided by the mesothelioma victim was ruled strong enough for a jury to weigh the evidence, and so the motion to dismiss was denied.