Page Updated December 31, 2025

Collaboration Between Mesothelioma Victims Leads to Asbestos Settlement

Page Reviewed and Edited by

Mesothelioma Attorney Paul Danziger

It’s been a long and painful road for the families of mesothelioma victims August Adams and Clarence Hales, but a big part of their legal journey ended earlier this year when Armstrong International agreed to the terms of a confidential settlement. Both men had been exposed to asbestos when they worked in the company’s Kinston, North Carolina Dupont plant decades earlier.

Dupont Employees’ Families Blame Asbestos in Plant for Mesothelioma Death

Years before their mesothelioma deaths, both Mr. Hales and Mr. Adams had worked in the DuPont manufacturing facility, and both men’s survivors filed suit against Armstrong and other companies whose asbestos-contaminated products they blamed for their illnesses. Because both men had worked at the same site and were represented by the same attorney, they filed a motion to consolidate their two cases into one. That petition was denied.

Despite their motion for consolidation being rejected, the two men’s families continued collaborating in their efforts to achieve closure to their mesothelioma claims, and that strategy was awarded by the recent settlement with Armstrong. Though they still have outstanding claims against other defendants, the families see hope in the resolution they’ve achieved.

Other Defendants Remain in Men’s Mesothelioma Claims

The Adams and Hales families have been pursuing justice on behalf of the mesothelioma victims since 2021, naming several other companies whose products were used in the DuPont plant between 1950 and 1980, when they’d both worked there. Their claims against Dow Chemical Company, Fluor Enterprises, Inc., and Viking Pump, Inc. are still being negotiated and may end up being heard in court, with Viking having filed a motion for summary judgment to have the case against it dismissed.

While both families still have litigation ahead of them, they plan to continue to collaborate in the name of efficiency and justice and hope for a positive outcome. Speaking of the confidential agreement that they reached with Armstrong, a representative said that both families are “appreciative of everyone’s efforts to find a way to resolution.”

The settlement highlights how coordination among similarly situated mesothelioma plaintiffs can influence outcomes even when courts deny formal consolidation. By sharing evidence, discovery strategy, and expert resources, the families increased pressure on a common defendant while controlling costs and avoiding inconsistent outcomes. For asbestos defendants, the case shows that resolving one claim does not insulate them from exposure when parallel cases advance together. For future mesothelioma plaintiffs, the outcome demonstrates that collaboration can be an effective alternative to consolidation in complex, multi-defendant asbestos litigation.