Dental Supply Salesman’s Mesothelioma Death Blamed on Asbestos Soldering Blocks

Karl Beierschmitt died of malignant mesothelioma after years of exposure to asbestos products. He had been a dental specialist and dental supply salesman, and part of his work involved the use of asbestos soldering blocks sold by Grobet File Company of America’s predecessor William Dixon Company. When Mr. Beierschmitt and his family sued the company for negligence, Grobet tried to evade responsibility by arguing they were not subject to California law. While a lower court granted their motion to dismiss, the California Court of Appeals disagreed.

Lower Court Initially Decides Against Mesothelioma Victim

When the mesothelioma victim was originally diagnosed with his fatal illness and filed suit against the asbestos company, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County agreed the case should be dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds. The court found the company was not incorporated in the state and had no principal place of business there, and that the victim could not establish a relationship between his illness and the company’s activity in California.

Mr. Beierschmitt died of mesothelioma, but his family members stepped in as plaintiffs and appealed the lower court’s decision. They pointed to testimony from the company’s president regarding national catalogs for the jewelry, dental, and optical industries. Those catalogues were produced from 1968 and 1973 and featured the asbestos soldering block products. There was no specific dental products catalog until 1973. Rather, dental products were sold from a price list with a description of the product.

Court Overturns Lower Court Decision in Mesothelioma Claim

In its review of the testimony presented in the mesothelioma case, the appeals court noted that the asbestos block company had a dedicated jewelry salesperson in California and that the president could not answer as to whether the salesperson would have been prohibited from selling dental products in the state. Based on a recent Supreme Court decision that no “strict causal relationship” was required to establish specific jurisdiction, the court decided that Grobet had purposely availed itself of the California market for soldering blocks and that the California courts did have jurisdiction over the case.