Mesothelioma Claims Often Pit Asbestos Companies Against One Another

Frequently, defendants in mesothelioma and asbestos-related claims turn on one another in order to evade having to carry too much liability. Such was the case in a recent lawsuit filed by a man diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer. Though one of the companies tried to have the case against them thrown out for vagueness, other defendants filed cross-claims against them to keep them from escaping responsibility.

Mesothelioma Victims and Others Exposed to Asbestos Seek Justice

Malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases wreak havoc on their victims, and many choose to file lawsuits seeking compensation from the companies that are at fault. In most cases, claims are filed against multiple defendants: this is because a person may have been exposed to several different manufacturer’s products in their workplace, or they may name the environment in which they were exposed, the products to which they were exposed, and others in the supply chain.

When Sheldon A. Boutte, Jr. was diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer, he and his wife Arlene filed claims against the Avondale Shipyard, the McDermott Shipyard, and the M.A. Patout Sugar Mill. He asserted that he had been exposed to asbestos when he worked in those locales, and from when his father and brothers had worked there too. He blamed the companies for having failed to ventilate the area where their employees worked and for failing to warn them or provide protection for them and family members who were at risk of malignant mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases through take-home exposure.

Shipyard Files Motion to Be Excused From Asbestos Case Based on Claim’s Vagueness

Despite the fact that specific information about how Mr. Boutte had been exposed to asbestos had been included in the original claim and that more would eventually revealed during the discovery process, the McDermott Shipyard filed a motion to be excused based on an “exception of vagueness.” Before the victim could respond, another defendant, the Avondale Shipyard, filed a cross-claim against them and the other named defendants to make sure that nobody evaded the liability that they shared.

In reviewing the claim and cross-claim, the judge hearing the asbestos case agreed with Avondale Shipyard and denied McDermott’s petition to be excused. He noted that information about where the various family members had worked, how they had been exposed, and additional detail, was either already presented in the claim or would eventually be brought to light.