Page Updated January 17, 2026

Court Says Mesothelioma Victim Can Pursue Punitive Damages

Page Reviewed and Edited by

Mesothelioma Attorney Paul Danziger

Being diagnosed with cancer is reason for fear, grief, and anger, but this is especially true for people diagnosed with the rare asbestos-related cancer known as malignant mesothelioma. Most victims were exposed to asbestos in products whose manufacturers were aware of its hazards. As a result, many have filed personal injury lawsuits seeking compensation for the damages they suffered. Some also pursue punitive damages if they believe that the asbestos company acted egregiously. Such is the case of a New York victim named Kevin Burns.

Mesothelioma Victim Accuses Boiler Company of Intentional Disregard

When Kevin Burns was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he filed a personal injury lawsuit against Burnham, LLC, the company that he blamed for having exposed him to asbestos. In addition to seeking compensation for damages, he also asked that a jury hearing his case determine whether punitive damages should be assessed based on the company ignoring the dangers that their product posed.

Burnham filed a motion for partial summary judgment to have the punitive damages claim removed from Burns’ lawsuit. They argued that there was no evidence to support a judgment that their conduct was morally culpable or egregious. To prove themselves innocent of this type of behavior, they submitted documents showing that the exposure that Mr. Burns had suffered was below the standard allowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Judge Denies Boiler Company’s Request for Punitive Damages to be Dismissed

On hearing both sides of the case Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York County denied the company’s request that punitive damages be dropped from the claim against them. The judge explained that the law was clear regarding when punitive damages could be sought: it required that “the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome.”

Based on this standard, the judge said, the evidence presented by the company did not disprove the mesothelioma victims’ claim, and since that is required for a defendant to successfully obtain summary judgment, the case will continue for a jury to assess whether the company’s actions warrant punishment.

This decision highlights a crucial distinction in asbestos litigation: compliance with regulatory exposure limits does not automatically shield a company from punitive damages. Courts have repeatedly recognized that asbestos manufacturers may still be held accountable if evidence shows they knew of the dangers, failed to warn users, or continued selling hazardous products despite foreseeable risks. By allowing a jury to consider punitive damages, the court reaffirmed that mesothelioma cases are not limited to compensating victims for losses, but may also serve to punish and deter corporate conduct that shows conscious disregard for human safety.

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided is for educational and informational purposes only. The information on this website is not intended as legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for consulting a licensed attorney. Legal outcomes and laws can vary by jurisdiction, and only a qualified lawyer can provide guidance tailored to your situation.