Court’s Decision Points to Benefits of Experienced Representation in Mesothelioma Claims

When Roberto Elorreaga died of malignant pleural mesothelioma, his wife and sons continued pursuing his personal injury lawsuit. He’d filed claims against companies that either manufactured of supplied the asbestos-containing equipment to which he’d been exposed during his years working aboard U.S. Navy vessels and in Naval shipyards. Though the companies attempted to have the claims dismissed, the thoughtful legal approach that the family’s attorneys took to their filing defeated the companies’ arguments against having the case heard.

Mesothelioma Claims Filing in Federal Court Made the Difference in Judge’s Decision

Malignant mesothelioma strikes those who have been exposed to asbestos, and a large percentage of mesothelioma lawsuits are filed by those who worked in shipyards or who served onboard Navy vessels. Because the asbestos that was used met government specifications, suppliers frequently argue that they are not liable because they were following U.S. instructions and had warned the government about the dangers of the materials. This is known as the government contractor defense.

The asbestos companies named in the Elorreaga family’s case attempted to use this defense against being held liable for his exposure, but their argument failed for one simple reason: the mesothelioma attorney that the family hired had encouraged them to file their claim under federal maritime law, and made a powerful argument in support of the case not being preempted there. While the government contractor defense can be used in state court, it does not apply in the venue that the attorney suggested, and the asbestos companies’ motion for summary judgment was denied.

Asbestos Companies’ Argument Regarding Causation in Mesothelioma Claim Also Denied

In addition to arguing that they should not be held liable for Mr. Elorreaga’s mesothelioma based on the government contractor defense, the asbestos companies also asserted a lack of sufficient evidence regarding their products’ role in his sickness and death. The judge denied this aspect of their motion as well, noting that “there are of course ‘inherent practical difficulties, given the long latency period of asbestos-related disease,’ in establishing causation from work performed several decades ago. Plaintiffs often lack direct evidence of causation, and often must rely on circumstantial evidence.”

The family’s case is continuing through the justice system.