Washington State Mesothelioma Victim Prevails Against Successor to Former Employer

Washington state resident Jeffrey Cockrum filed a mesothelioma lawsuit against Howmet Aerospace, the successor to his former employer, and several other companies. He later dismissed his original claim and resubmitted it to add another company to the list of defendants. In response, Howmet accused him of fraudulent joinder, a legal term that describes inappropriate adding a defendant for fraudulent purposes. The Washington state courts dismissed the company’s claim, adding that they were misinterpreting the law.

Mesothelioma Victim Adjusts Claim After Initial Filing

Jeffrey Cockrum’s mesothelioma lawsuit was filed in Washington State’s King County Superior Court, but when he amended his claim to add Washington-based North Coast Electrical without first getting permission from the court, he withdrew his case and resubmitted it. In response, Howmet Aerospace, successor to his former employer Alcoa Wenatchee Works, accused him of having added the company to the list of defendants in order to avoid having the case removed to federal court, where juries are often more friendly to asbestos companies.

In making their fraudulent joinder argument, Howmet pointed out that it was only after they’d argued for the mesothelioma claim to be removed to federal court that Mr. Cockrum amended his claim to add the Washington-based company as a defendant. They said that he had submitted a “sham defendant” in order to defeat their motion for removal, and said that his evidence in support of naming the electrical company was circumstantial.

Sham Defendant Argument Denied in Washington Mesothelioma Claim

In responding to Howmet’s argument, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington noted that the company’s argument regarding circumstantial evidence inappropriate placed the burden of proof on the victim, and that at this point in the case, it was a defendant’s job to prove that they could not have been responsible for his illness. The court also pointed out that Mr. Cockrum’s deposition testimony established that he had been exposed to asbestos from North Coast’s products, and that therefore the company had been appropriately – rather than fraudulently – named as a defendant. The case will be heard in the state’s courts.