Mesothelioma Victim’s Widow Asks Court for Help with Asbestos Company

When Roland Cook was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, he blamed his deadly illness on asbestos exposure from the gaskets he had worked with throughout his career. He and his wife Linda filed a personal injury lawsuit against the gasket manufacturer before he died. Later, the asbestos company’s owner filed for bankruptcy and notified the widow that no funds had been set aside for claims like hers. In response, she filed suit and sought assistance from the courts.

Asbestos Company’s Bankruptcy Filing Would Cheat Mesothelioma Victims of Justice

The company that Roland Cook blamed for his malignant mesothelioma was a predecessor to Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC. He was not the only one who was harmed by the manufacturer’s asbestos-contaminated products. Faced with multiple asbestos claims, the company filed for bankruptcy and notified Mrs. Cook that no assets had been set aside for creditors or claimants.

The certificate of cancellation that Mrs. Cook received came after her mesothelioma lawsuit had already been filed, while the case was pending in the judicial system. Upon receipt of the bankruptcy notification, she filed a petition with the court that accused the company of non-compliance with bankruptcy laws and asked that a receiver be appointed and the certificate of cancellation of her claim be canceled.

Asbestos Company’s Argument Against Paying Mesothelioma Victims Subject of Petition

The mesothelioma widow filed a petition arguing that the company had still had assets when they filed for bankruptcy, and that they’d been obligated to set aside money for asbestos plaintiffs that had claims pending against them. Though the company pushed back and said that she did not have standing to seek the appointment of a receiver, the Court of Chancery of Delaware disagreed with that assertion.

The judge hearing the case agreed that Mrs. Cook had standing to request a receiver on behalf of her mesothelioma claim, and that the petition had provided sufficient evidence that the company had assets that it had failed to set aside when it filed for bankruptcy. Each side is now submitting the names of proposed receivers to assess the situation and determine how best to distribute assets to mesothelioma victims.