Judge Cites Insufficiency of Porsche’s Argument in Allowing Asbestos Case to Proceed
Diseases like malignant mesothelioma and asbestosis are frequently the result of workplace exposure to asbestos. Following her husband’s death from asbestos-related lung cancer, Susan Carboni pursued legal action against the companies she blames for exposing him to asbestos-contaminated materials, including Porsche Cars, North America. Though the company argued that it should be dismissed from the case, a New York judge denied their petition.
Porsche Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Asbestos-Lung Cancer Case
The case revolves around the death of 79-year-old Francesco Carboni, who died of asbestos-related lung cancer in 2020. In her personal injury lawsuit against the various companies whose asbestos-contaminated parts her husband had worked with over the course of his decades-long career as an auto mechanic, the widow noted the many years that he had worked on European vehicles while growing up in Italy, and his continued work on those vehicles when he emigrated to the United States fifty years before his death.
Mr. Carboni worked for Zumbach Sports Car for 37 years, and before his death he provided deposition testimony that he had “personally performed brake, clutch, exhaust/muffler, generator, and starter-motor work on Porsche vehicles.” The company responded to these claims by offering testimony from an employee who noted that Porsche could not be held liable because they had not incorporated in the United States until August of 1984.
Judge Denies Porsche’s Arguments in Asbestos Lung Cancer Death
In his response to Porsche’s motion for summary judgment, Justice Adam Silvera pointed out that the company had failed to provide any supporting documentation regarding the years of their incorporation. He also noted that the years of Mr. Carboni’s work on Porsche vehicles went beyond the date cited by their employee, making their argument both insufficient and moot. Mrs. Carboni will be able to continue her quest for justice.
This decision reinforces that asbestos defendants cannot rely on corporate technicalities or unsupported testimony to escape liability at the summary judgment stage. The court made clear that when a victim provides credible occupational exposure testimony, the burden shifts to the defendant to present concrete evidence, not assumptions, to eliminate factual disputes. For asbestos victims and their families, the ruling preserves access to jury trials even when exposure occurred across multiple countries and decades. For automotive manufacturers, it serves as a warning that historical product use and repair practices remain legally relevant regardless of later corporate restructuring.
FREE Financial Compensation Packet
- Info on law firms that will recover your HIGHEST COMPENSATION
- Learn how to get paid in 90 days
- File for your share of $30 billion in trust funds
