Judges Call Union Carbide’s Argument in Mesothelioma Claim “Misplaced”

In 2015, malignant mesothelioma turned Charles and Louise Brannan’s world upside down. Charles was diagnosed with the disease and died less than a month after the couple filed their claim. One of the defendants, Union Carbide Corporation, filed several motions to have Louise’s revised complaint dismissed based on legal technicalities. The judges of the Court of Appeals of Georgia rejected their motions. Following this, the company appealed that court’s decision to the Georgia Supreme Court. The high court denied the company’s request to hear their objection.

Asbestos Company Attempts to Evade Responsibility for Man’s Mesothelioma

It is all-too common for asbestos companies to use legal technicalities as a basis for having malignant mesothelioma claims against them dismissed. In the Brannan’s case, the short period of time between the couple’s complaint and Charles’ death resulted in a series of legal maneuvers being required. Union Carbide filed a “Notice of Suggestion of Death of Plaintiff” ten days after the death, but because no estate representative had been assigned yet, proper service did not take place.

A year later, the mesothelioma widow filed an amended complaint removing her late husband from the claim and naming herself as a representative of the estate, but the asbestos company filed a legal objection, to which she appropriately responded. She filed a voluntary dismissal of the original complaint and then filed a new claim as both a representative of the estate and for herself for loss of consortium. The company objected again because of the prior pending action, and when that claim was denied they filed another arguing that she had no right to dismiss her late husband’s claims. After losing both of these arguments, the company appealed.

Appeals Court Clarifies Mesothelioma Widow’s Legal Rights

In responding to the asbestos company’s arguments, the appeals court called Union Carbide’s arguments against the mesothelioma widow’s rights “misplaced.” They pointed to the fact that she had refiled all of her motions within the required time frame and appropriately and ordered that the case be allowed to continue. Though the company then appealed that decision to the state’s highest court, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to even consider their argument.