Asbestos-Contaminated Cooling Towers Blamed for Air Conditioning Contractor’s Mesothelioma

Charles Vincent died of malignant pleural mesothelioma after spending most of his working life around air conditioning cooling towers. He believed that asbestos that contaminated the towers’ parts was responsible for his illness and filed a claim against Baltimore Aircoil Company (BAC) seeking compensation for the harms that he suffered due to their negligence. The company responded with a motion to have the case dismissed, but upon review, Judge Manuel J. Mendez of the New York City Asbestos Litigation court rejected the company’s argument and allowed the case to proceed for a jury to decide.

Mesothelioma Victim Recounts Years of Asbestos Exposure

In deposition testimony provided prior to his death, the mesothelioma victim traced his asbestos exposure to his years of working for William A. Schwartz, an air conditioning contractor who had hired him as an office worker when he was just sixteen years old. He went on to work as a mechanic and later as a supervisor on Baltimore Aircoil Company’s cooling towers that were located at the Squibb Building in Manhattan, the World Trade Center, and a residence at Rockefeller University.

He described the specific work that he believed caused his mesothelioma. It included cleaning and scraping asbestos-containing louvers and the asbestos-contaminated gaskets that were used with them. In response BAC argued that the louvers never contained asbestos and claimed that their cooling towers did not use any gaskets for the louvers.

Judge Calls Asbestos Company’s Witness Testimony “Without Factual Basis”

In denying BAC’s motion to dismiss the mesothelioma claim against it, Judge Mendez pointed to an affidavit provided by their witness and said that it was “without factual basis” and did not meet the burden required for a case to be dismissed. By contrast, he said that the testimony provided by Mr. Vincent was sufficient to meet the requirement that it “only show facts and conditions from which defendant’s liability may be reasonably inferred.” The case will proceed to court for a jury to decide.