Deficiencies in Mesothelioma Victim’s Testimony Not Enough to Have Case Dismissed

Facing a personal injury lawsuit filed by a Navy veteran diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, pump manufacturer Armstrong Pumps attempted to have the case against them dismissed. Though the company argued that there were gaps in his testimony that warranted them evading judgment, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division denied their motion and the case will move forward.

Navy Veteran with Mesothelioma Spent Years on Submarines

According to the filing in his mesothelioma lawsuit, Albert O. Howard spent the years between 1961 and 1978 serving onboard multiple submarines. Diagnosed with mesothelioma in December of 2020, he and his wife blame his illness on exposure to asbestos-contaminated products onboard those vessels, including those manufactured by Armstrong Pumps.

Armstrong argued that his mesothelioma could not be blamed on them because their company had not come into existence until 1965. They also argued that he’d failed to identify the exact vessels on which he’d been exposed.

Mesothelioma Victim’s Testimony Defeats Asbestos Company’s Argument

In denying the company’s motion for summary judgment, the New York Supreme Court noted that New York law required the company to prove it impossible for their products to have caused his mesothelioma rather than pointing to gaps in the victim’s testimony. With reference to their argument about their company not existing prior to 1965, the court noted that Mr. Howard had specifically indicated that the pumps and other equipment were frequently replaced, thus making it possible for them to have been installed on ships after 1965.

With reference to testimony from a company representative not hired until 2007, the court called themselves “unpersuaded” and noted that he “fails to identify his basis of knowledge for his conclusions, or whether there were any specific standards that were applicable during the relevant timeframe. Finally, the court wrote that “Defendant’s remaining arguments are clearly intended at pointing to deficiencies in Howard’s testimony concerning his recollection of the exact time and place that he observed defendant’s pumps, which is insufficient to meet its burden on its motion.” The case will continue to a jury.