Mesothelioma Suit Against World Trade Center Asbestos Company Allowed to Proceed
The Supreme Court of New York was asked to weigh in on a mesothelioma lawsuit filed by the widow of a mesothelioma victim who traced his asbestos exposure to his days working in New York City’s World Trade Center. Marie Bassi Ryder filed suit against several companies that she’s accused of negligence in her late husband’s death, and though one of those companies filed a motion for summary judgment, the court rejected their argument and allowed the case against them to proceed.
Fireproofing Spray Containing Asbestos Blamed for Mesothelioma
Mrs. Ryder’s late husband was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma decades after he worked at the site of the World Trade Center. Among the named defendants in her lawsuit was Arconic, Inc., whose fire-proofing spray was used in the iconic buildings’ construction and which contained asbestos. She said that he had been exposed by having been in close proximity to workers using the product without taking proper precautions.
In its motion to have the mesothelioma claim against them dismissed, Arconic argued that their spray did not contain asbestos after 1970, before he began working at the site. But the widow’s attorneys pointed out that the proof of this that the company had presented was limited to a memo that suggested that the product might be discontinued rather than evidence that it actually had been. They also pointed out that, even if the workmen had stopped using it, that didn’t prove that they didn’t start using it again.
Request for Dismissal from Mesothelioma Claim Denied
Because Arconic had not “unequivocally” established that its product could not have played a part in Mr. Ryder’s mesothelioma, the judge hearing the widow’s case denied Arconic’s request for dismissal, especially because of the abundance of documentary evidence that she had provided about the use of Arconic’s asbestos-containing materials at the worksite.
He wrote that in presenting her mesothelioma claim, the widow had provided “sufficient documentary evidence to raise a question of fact as to the extent of asbestos-containing material in use at the World Trade Center post-1970, its proximity to plaintiffs work, and whether the company had notice of, or created, the dangerous condition.”
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
